Khalayleh v. I.N.S.
Citation | 287 F.3d 978 |
Decision Date | 23 April 2002 |
Docket Number | No. 01-9504.,01-9504. |
Parties | Khalid KHALAYLEH, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit) |
Jim Salvator, Lafayette, CO, for Petitioner.
Christine A. Bither, Senior Litigation Counsel (Robert D. McCullam, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, and Margaret J. Perry, Senior Litigation Counsel, with her on the brief), Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before KELLY, Circuit Judge, BRORBY, Senior Circuit Judge, and HARTZ, Circuit Judge.
On April 14, 2000, Petitioner Khalid Khalayleh, a resident alien at the time was convicted of bank fraud. An immigration judge ruled that Petitioner's offense constituted an "aggravated felony," as defined by the Immigration and Nationality Act, and ordered his removal from the United States in accordance with 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) (). Petitioner's appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals was dismissed. He then petitioned this court for relief. Respondent Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) moves to dismiss the petition under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), which states that But cf. INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 293-97, 121 S.Ct. 2271, 150 L.Ed.2d 347 (2001) ( ). We grant the motion.
Although we ultimately hold that we do not have jurisdiction to review Petitioner's petition, we do have jurisdiction to determine the applicability of the jurisdictional bar of § 1252(a)(2)(C). See Tapia Garcia v. INS, 237 F.3d 1216, 120 (10th Cir.2001). Thus, we must determine whether Petitioner's conviction was for an aggravated felony. Ironically, our resolution of the jurisdictional issue also resolves the merits of the petition that we lack jurisdiction to review.
The statutory definition of "aggravated felony" includes a number of offenses. The language relied upon by the INS is as follows: "The term `aggravated felony' means ... an offense that ... involves fraud or deceit in which the loss to the victim or victims exceeds $10,000...." 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i). Petitioner does not dispute that he was convicted of an offense that "involves fraud." His challenge relates to the scope of the offense and the resulting "loss to the victim or victims."
Petitioner's conviction was founded on a guilty plea to one count of an indictment in accordance with a plea agreement. The indictment contains four counts charging violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1344(1), which imposes criminal penalties on anyone who "knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, a scheme or artifice ... to defraud a financial institution...." Each of the counts incorporates the same two paragraphs alleging a scheme by Petitioner to defraud Bank One Colorado, N.A. (Bank One) and Colorado National Bank (CNB) in December 1995. According to the two paragraphs, the scheme included knowingly writing six insufficient-funds checks on his accounts at three banks, depositing the six checks into his accounts at CNB and Bank One, and then writing several checks, "four of which are specifically described below," to obtain funds for his personal use. Each of the four counts then describes a specific check written by Petitioner.
Petitioner pleaded guilty to Count Two of the indictment. The specific check listed in that count is a check in the amount of $9,308. Petitioner's plea agreement states that he agrees "to pay restitution in the amount of the `actual loss,' to be determined by the court at sentencing." The court ordered restitution of $24,324.03.
Petitioner contends that he was not convicted of an offense "in which the loss to the victim or victims exceeds $10,000," because the specific check listed in Count Two of the indictment is in the amount of only $9,308. In essence, his argument is that the offense to which he pleaded was merely the fraudulent issuance of the single check, and therefore the "loss to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Shepherd v. Holder
...petition for review is dismissal for lack of jurisdiction under § 1252(a)(2)(C). See Tapia Garcia, 237 F.3d at 1223;Khalayleh v. INS, 287 F.3d 978, 979 (10th Cir.2002) (following Tapia Garcia ). In sum, we have jurisdiction to determine the jurisdictional fact of whether Ms. Shepherd is a c......
-
Beshli v. Department of Homeland Security
...(citing Chang v. INS, 307 F.3d 1185 (9th Cir.2002) (determining loss from amount contained in plea agreement); Khalayleh v. INS, 287 F.3d 978, 980 (10th Cir.2002) (determining loss from amount alleged in 2. Lack of Specificity of Conspiracy Referenced in the Notice The Court also rejects pe......
-
Sanchez-Penunuri v. Longshore
...both stages of the Chevron analysis but has declined to resolve the question based on the statute's plain meaning. See Khalayleh v. INS, 287 F.3d 978, 980 (10th Cir.2002).23 Both parties proffer that when could mean “a reasonable period of time after his release from custody.” ” (Doc. # 1; ......
-
Castillo-Hernandez v. Longshore
...at both stages of the Chevron analysis but has declined to resolve the question based on the statute's plain meaning. SeeKhalayleh v. INS, 287 F.3d 978, 980 (10th Cir.2002). 23. The Court also notes that the government cites a number of old authorities in support of this argument—authoritie......