Ramani Pilla v. Eric Holder, Jr., 458 F. App'x 518

Pilla, a native and citizen of India, was a lawful permanent resident who pled guilty to lying to the FBI under 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
She initially reported hate mail she claimed to have received at Case Western Reserve University, later admitting she wrote and planted the letters herself.
Pilla pled guilty to an orally modified Count 1; the plea did not include a written agreement and the district court sentenced her to six months’ imprisonment plus about $66,000 in restitution, with a prior admission that total losses exceeded $10,000 but were under $30,000.
In immigration proceedings, she was charged as removable as an aggravated felon under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii); IJ and BIA both held that her conduct qualified due to loss exceeding $10,000.
The Sixth Circuit reviews de novo whether a § 1001 conviction qualifies as an aggravated felony under § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i), which requires fraud/deceit with losses over $10,000.
The court ultimately held that the conviction involves deceit, the losses are tied to the offense through restitution and sentencing materials, and the combined losses to FBI and Case Western exceed $10,000.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §1101(a)(43)(M)(i) requires fraud/deceit and loss over $10,000 for aggravated felony	Pilla argues no fraud; losses not over $10,000.	Government argues the statute covers deceit and combined losses exceed $10,000.	Yes; deceit applies and losses exceed $10,000.
Whether victims and losses can be aggregated across entities	Only FBI losses should be considered since FBI was the sole victim proximately tied to the conviction.	Victims include FBI and Case Western; losses may be aggregated for §1101(a)(43)(M)(i).	Yes; both victims’ losses may be considered.
Whether Case Western’s losses were properly tied to the specific conviction	Losses must be tied to the particular count of lying to the FBI.	Restitution order and sentencing stipulation sufficiently tie losses to the offense.	Yes; restitution and stipulation establish loss tied to the offense.
Whether ineffective-assistance argument is reviewable	Trial counsel’s admission of losses could be reviewable	No jurisdiction to review on this ground because not raised before the Board	Lack of jurisdiction to review; denied on this basis.

Patel v. Ashcroft, 401 F.3d 400 (6th Cir. 2005) (de novo review of aggravated-felony definitions)
Valansi v. Ashcroft, 278 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2002) (definition of deceit includes giving a false impression)
Patel v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 800 (5th Cir. 2008) (interpretation of deceit and related terms under §1101(a)(43)(M)(i))
Nijhawan v. Holder, 129 S. Ct. 2294 (S. Ct. 2009) (use of sentencing-related material to establish loss)
Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137 (1987) (principles regarding foreseeability and outrageous consequences of felonies)
Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co., 162 N.E. 99 (N.Y. 1928) (expanded notion of harm/victim beyond intended targets)
United States v. Hildebrandt, 961 F.2d 116 (8th Cir. 1992) (third parties as victims for sentencing purposes when deceit triggers investigations)
Patel v. Ashcroft, 401 F.3d 400 (6th Cir. 2005) (de novo review of aggravated-felony definitions)