Ragbir v. Lynch, 640 F. App'x 105

Petitioner Ravidath Lawrence Ragbir, a citizen of Trinidad and Tobago, was convicted of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and multiple wire fraud counts under 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1343 & 2.
The convictions were treated as an aggravated felony (fraud or deceit involving loss > $10,000), forming the basis for a final order of removal.
Ragbir filed a motion to reconsider and reopen the BIA’s removal order; the BIA denied the motion as untimely and declined to exercise sua sponte reopening.
Ragbir argued the BIA misapplied intervening Supreme Court decisions (Skilling and Nijhawan) and that his conviction may not categorically qualify as a "fraud or deceit" aggravated felony and that loss calculations were erroneous.
The Second Circuit dismissed Ragbir’s petition for review for lack of jurisdiction over orders of removal based on aggravated felonies and concluded the BIA did not misperceive the law such that remand was required.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction to review BIA denial of motion to reconsider/reopen	Ragbir sought review of BIA denial; argued BIA misapplied law	Gov’t: final order of removal based on aggravated felony bars review under 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(C)	Court: Lacks jurisdiction; dismissal affirmed
Whether §1343 convictions are categorically "fraud or deceit" for aggravated-felony purposes	Ragbir: Skilling limits §1343; conviction may fall outside fraud/deceit category	Gov’t: Pre-Skilling §1343 convictions still "involve deceit" and qualify	Court: Held Kawashima and Skilling do not remove §1343 crimes from "fraud or deceit" category; conviction qualifies
Need to remand because of Nijhawan’s loss-analysis standard	Ragbir: Supreme Court’s circumstance-specific loss analysis could alter removability	Gov’t: BIA already applied circumstance-specific approach; Ragbir failed to produce evidence at proceedings	Court: No misperception; remand not warranted; Ragbir failed to rebut loss calculations
Sua sponte reopening and due process claim	Ragbir: BIA should have reopened sua sponte and considered adjustment eligibility; denial violated due process	Gov’t: Sua sponte relief is discretionary; Ragbir’s motion was untimely so Velarde-Pacheco factors need not apply; no protected interest in discretionary adjustment	Court: BIA properly declined sua sponte reopening; no due process violation because relief is discretionary

Santos-Salazar v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 400 F.3d 99 (2d Cir.) (jurisdictional limits on review of removal orders)
Durant v. INS, 393 F.3d 113 (2d Cir.) (review bar for aggravated-felony removals)
Barco-Sandoval v. Gonzales, 516 F.3d 35 (2d Cir.) (requirements for colorable legal or constitutional claims)
Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515 (2d Cir.) (sua sponte reopening is discretionary and unreviewable)
Mahmood v. Holder, 570 F.3d 466 (2d Cir.) (remand appropriate only when BIA misperceived law in declining sua sponte relief)
Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010) (narrowing scope of honest-services and related fraud concepts)
Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29 (2009) (circumstance-specific approach to loss calculation for aggravated-felony fraud)
Kawashima v. Holder, 132 S. Ct. 1166 (2012) (defining "deceit" and clarifying fraud/aggravated-felony analysis)
Lanferman v. BIA, 576 F.3d 84 (2d Cir.) (limits on collaterally attacking underlying convictions in removal proceedings)
Doe v. Att’y Gen., 659 F.3d 266 (3d Cir.) (pre-Skilling fraud convictions still involve deceit)
Johnson v. Holder, 564 F.3d 95 (2d Cir.) (law-of-the-case application regarding loss analysis)
Yuen Jin v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 143 (2d Cir.) (no constitutional property interest in discretionary relief)
Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433 (5th Cir.) (discretionary nature of adjustment of status)