573 F. App'x 55
2d Cir.2014Background
- Petitioner Padmashri Sampathkumar, an Indian national, was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1014 and placed in removal proceedings; the IJ denied motions to terminate and to adjust status and denied a waiver of inadmissibility.
- The BIA affirmed (Oct. 17, 2011) and supplemented its decision (July 22, 2013); Sampathkumar petitioned for review in the Second Circuit.
- Key legal consequences at issue: whether § 1014 is an "aggravated felony" because it "involves fraud or deceit," whether the loss exceeded $10,000 (Nijhawan threshold), and whether § 1014 is a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) affecting adjustment/waiver eligibility.
- The BIA found the conviction was an aggravated felony and found the loss exceeded $10,000 based on plea/sentencing materials; the IJ did not make an explicit loss finding.
- Sampathkumar also claimed she had become a U.S. citizen after signing an oath at her naturalization interview; the government had canceled her scheduled public oath ceremony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1014 "involves fraud or deceit" for INA § 101(a)(43)(M)(i) | § 1014 lacks an explicit materiality element and so does not necessarily entail deceit | § 1014 requires knowingly false statements intended to influence a bank — equivalent to deceit | Held: § 1014 involves deceit; qualifies as an aggravated felony under (M)(i) |
| Whether loss exceeded $10,000 (Nijhawan) | BIA’s $10,000+ finding was unsupported because IJ never made factual finding; plea stipulation aggregated unrelated losses | Government relied on plea colloquy and sentencing materials to establish loss | Held: BIA erred by making initial factual finding; remand required for IJ to determine loss tied to count of conviction |
| Whether § 1014 is a crime involving moral turpitude (affecting § 212(h) waiver) | Sampathkumar argued § 1014 is not a CIMT, so she need not show waiver eligibility | Government assumed CIMT and denied waiver without first deciding CIMT issue | Held: Agency must first determine whether § 1014 is a CIMT; remanded for that threshold finding |
| Whether petitioner is a U.S. citizen from oath at interview | Signing oath at interview and officer’s congratulations conferred citizenship | Government: public oath ceremony is required; interview oath insufficient | Held: Denied — petitioner never took the required public oath ceremony and therefore is not a U.S. citizen |
Key Cases Cited
- Kawashima v. Holder, 132 S. Ct. 1166 (Sup. Ct.) (categorical approach; elements must necessarily entail deceit)
- Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183 (Sup. Ct.) ("realistic probability" test for categorical approach)
- Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29 (Sup. Ct.) (circumstance-specific inquiry for loss threshold)
- United States v. Wells, 519 U.S. 482 (Sup. Ct.) (interpretation of § 1014 and discussion of materiality)
- Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520 (2d Cir.) (reviewing IJ decision as modified by BIA)
- Padmore v. Holder, 609 F.3d 62 (2d Cir.) (limits on BIA factfinding)