Deron Joe v. Attorney General United States, 21-2637

Petitioner Deron Odada Joe, a Liberian national, admitted in 1999, received asylum in 2002 and later adjusted to LPR status.
In 2019 a jury convicted Joe of conspiracy to defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. § 371) and eleven counts under 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2) for preparing false tax returns.
Government charged removability as an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(M) (fraud or deceit with loss > $10,000) and (U) (conspiracy/attempt); Joe sought adjustment, a § 1182(h) waiver, asylum, withholding, and CAT protection.
The IJ found Joe removable, denied discretionary relief and asylum, and denied CAT relief; the BIA dismissed his appeal; Joe filed a pro se petition for review.
The Third Circuit held it lacked jurisdiction to review unexhausted asylum/withholding claims and discretionary denials of adjustment/waiver, affirmed denial of CAT relief on the merits (changed country conditions and Joe’s safe 2013–2017 stay), but found error in the Board’s determination that losses exceeded $10,000 and remanded on removability.
The court concluded the PSR’s $145,951 loss figure was not sufficiently tethered to the counts of conviction; sentencing-loss and INA-loss analyses differ, so the government did not meet the clear-and-convincing burden as applied to the convicted counts.

Issue	Joe’s Argument	Government’s Argument	Held
Jurisdiction to review asylum/withholding claims not raised before BIA	Joe argued merits before this Court	Government argued failure to exhaust the BIA deprives review	Court: No jurisdiction (failure to exhaust)
Jurisdiction to review denial of discretionary adjustment and §1182(h) waiver	Joe sought review of discretionary denials	Government asserted those decisions are committed to agency discretion and not reviewable	Court: No jurisdiction over discretionary factual determinations
CAT protection — will Joe face torture if returned to Liberia?	Joe claimed risk as a deportee and due to past political associations	Government relied on changed country conditions, Taylor’s conviction, and Joe’s safe return to Liberia (2013–2017)	Court: Denial of CAT relief upheld on the merits
Removability as aggravated felony under §1101(a)(43)(M) — did loss to victim(s) exceed $10,000?	Joe argued government failed to prove loss > $10,000 attributable to the convicted counts	Government relied on PSR loss figure ($145,951) and sentencing materials	Court: Board erred — PSR figure not clearly tied to the counts of conviction; remand required to prove clear-and-convincing nexus

Castro v. Attorney General, 671 F.3d 356 (3d Cir. 2012) (failure to exhaust BIA remedies deprives appellate review)
Zheng v. Gonzales, 422 F.3d 98 (3d Cir. 2005) (no judicial review of discretionary adjustment of status decisions)
Cospito v. Attorney General, 539 F.3d 166 (3d Cir. 2008) (jurisdiction does not extend to discretionary waiver factual determinations)
Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1062 (2020) (courts retain jurisdiction to review colorable constitutional claims and questions of law)
Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683 (2020) (jurisdiction-stripping for criminal removals does not bar CAT review)
Kawashima v. Holder, 565 U.S. 478 (2012) (§7206(2) convictions necessarily contemplate deceit)
Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29 (2009) (circumstance-specific inquiry for fraud-loss under INA)
Singh v. Attorney General, 677 F.3d 503 (3d Cir. 2012) (government must prove loss by clear and convincing evidence)
Rad v. Attorney General, 983 F.3d 651 (3d Cir. 2020) (may consult sentencing-related materials but sentencing-loss differs from INA loss)
Alaka v. Attorney General, 456 F.3d 88 (3d Cir. 2006) (removal depends on losses attributable to the convicted offense)