The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the 3rd Circuit in Nijhawan v. Holder, Attorney General on June 15th. The law says that the government may deport an alien who is convicted of an “aggravated felony.”
The question before the court dealt with the interpretation of the term “aggravated felony.” Immigration law holds that this crime includes “fraud or deceit in which the loss to the victim or victims exceeds $10,000.”
The word “felony” may be read with a “categorical” or a “circumstance-specific” interpretation. A categorical interpretation defines the crime generically, and requires a judge to examine the statute in question for a monetary threshold. The statutes used to indict the petitioner did not require the jury to rule on the amount of the loss.
However the Supreme Court ruled that the statute contains both categorical and circumstance-specific language, but the “aggravated felony” language allows for a circumstance-specific interpretation, which examines the facts of the case in question. Sentenced to pay $683 million in restitution, the petitioner had committed crimes resulting in a loss much greater than $10,000.
The petitioner also argued that in order to determine the amount of the loss, evidence presented by the government must include the ruling of the judge or the verdict of a jury. However, the petitioner had at least one opportunity to contest accusations regarding the amount of loss, which he did not do. He presented no conflicting evidence during the trial, and his sentence required him to pay $683 million. Justice Breyer delivered the Court’s opinion.
Supreme Court Rules Against Alien, Defines "Aggravated Felony"
The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the 3rd Circuit in Nijhawan v. Holder, Attorney General on June 15th. The law says that the government may deport an alien who is convicted of an “aggravated felony.”
The question before the court dealt with the interpretation of the term “aggravated felony.” Immigration law holds that this crime includes “fraud or deceit in which the loss to the victim or victims exceeds $10,000.”
The word “felony” may be read with a “categorical” or a “circumstance-specific” interpretation. A categorical interpretation defines the crime generically, and requires a judge to examine the statute in question for a monetary threshold. The statutes used to indict the petitioner did not require the jury to rule on the amount of the loss.
However the Supreme Court ruled that the statute contains both categorical and circumstance-specific language, but the “aggravated felony” language allows for a circumstance-specific interpretation, which examines the facts of the case in question. Sentenced to pay $683 million in restitution, the petitioner had committed crimes resulting in a loss much greater than $10,000.
The petitioner also argued that in order to determine the amount of the loss, evidence presented by the government must include the ruling of the judge or the verdict of a jury. However, the petitioner had at least one opportunity to contest accusations regarding the amount of loss, which he did not do. He presented no conflicting evidence during the trial, and his sentence required him to pay $683 million. Justice Breyer delivered the Court’s opinion.