Maniar v. Garland
998 F.3d 235
| 5th Cir. | 2021Background
- Rajen Maniar, an H‑1B visa holder, pleaded guilty in 2017 to conspiracy to commit money laundering under 18 U.S.C. §1956(h) and other federal offenses; restitution exceeded $26 million and he served one month in custody due to cooperation.
- Immigration Judge (IJ) found Maniar removable as having committed an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(43)(D), (M), and (U); IJ rejected Maniar’s argument that §1101(a)(43)(U) requires proof of an overt act.
- IJ also found Maniar inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. §1182(a)(2)(I)(ii) (knowing conspirator in offenses described in §§1956–57) and concluded he was ineligible for a §1182(h) waiver.
- While appealing, Maniar moved to terminate proceedings under Pereira (challenging his notice to appear) and sought missing hearing transcripts; BIA denied relief and affirmed the IJ, concluding §1101(a)(43)(U) does not require an overt act.
- Fifth Circuit held it had jurisdiction to review legal questions, declined to decide the overt‑act question, and instead affirmed removability on the alternate ground that Maniar’s §1956(h) conviction is an aggravated felony under §1101(a)(43)(D).
- The court dismissed Maniar’s waiver challenge for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and rejected his transcript/due‑process and Pereira-based jurisdictional claims.
Issues
| Issue | Maniar's Argument | Garland's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Maniar’s §1956(h) conspiracy conviction is an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(43)(U) because §1101(a)(43)(U) requires proof of an overt act | Maniar: §1101(a)(43)(U) should be read to require an overt act; §1956(h) does not require one, so it cannot qualify under (U) | Government: §1101(a)(43)(U) covers attempt/conspiracy convictions like §1956(h) even without an overt‑act requirement | Court declined to decide the §1101(a)(43)(U) overt‑act question |
| Whether Maniar’s §1956(h) conviction is an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(43)(D) (offense described in §1956 involving over $10,000) | Maniar: (implicit) challenges to aggravated‑felony classification under (D) not central | Government: §1956(h) is an offense described in §1956 and the funds exceeded $10,000 | Held: Conviction plainly qualifies as an aggravated felony under §1101(a)(43)(D); removal affirmed on that alternative ground |
| Whether Maniar is eligible for a §1182(h) waiver given IJ’s conclusion he is inadmissible under §1182(a)(2)(I)(ii) (knowing conspirator), and whether that provision requires an overt act | Maniar: §1182(a)(2)(I)(ii) requires an overt act like his §1956(h) argument, so waiver eligibility follows | Government: Maniar is inadmissible under §1182(a)(2)(I)(ii) and the listed inadmissibility is not waivable under §1182(h) | Court: Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because Maniar failed to exhaust this specific argument before the BIA |
| Procedural challenges: missing transcripts/due process and defective notice to appear (Pereira) | Maniar: Missing transcripts prejudiced his ability to raise due process claims; notice to appear missing time/place voids jurisdiction | Government: Transcripts were not shown to cause substantial prejudice; Pereira does not extend to invalidate charging documents under the regulations | Court: Due‑process claim fails (no substantial prejudice shown); Pereira challenge rejected under circuit precedent (Pierre‑Paul) |
Key Cases Cited
- Whitfield v. United States, 543 U.S. 209 (concerning whether §1956(h) requires an overt act)
- Guerrero‑Lasprilla v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1062 (jurisdictional scope of review for criminal‑alien removal orders)
- Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683 (clarifying review of legal and constitutional claims in criminal‑alien cases)
- Shroff v. Sessions, 890 F.3d 542 (5th Cir.) (holding whether a conviction qualifies as an aggravated felony is a question of law)
- Luna‑Garcia v. Barr, 932 F.3d 285 (5th Cir.) (Chenery‑based limits on affirming agency action and when exceptions apply)
- Pierre‑Paul v. Barr, 930 F.3d 684 (5th Cir.) (refusing to extend Pereira beyond stop‑time rule; regulations govern sufficiency of notice to appear as a charging document)
- Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (holding notice to appear lacking required information may affect stop‑time rule)
- Niz‑Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (distinguishing single‑document requirement for stop‑time rule; discussed as related to Pereira)
- Michigan v. EPA, 576 U.S. 743 (discussing that courts may uphold agency action only on grounds the agency invoked)
- Negusie v. Holder, 555 U.S. 511 (remand appropriate when agency has not issued an interpretation on an ambiguous statutory question)