## Facts

- Manoj Nijhawan, a lawful permanent resident, participated in a large-scale scheme using falsified documents and sham transactions to obtain bank loans.
- A federal jury convicted him of conspiracy to commit bank fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud, and conspiracy to commit money laundering.
- The statutes of conviction did not include “amount of loss” as an element, and the jury made no loss finding.
- At sentencing, Nijhawan stipulated that the loss exceeded $100 million, and the district court ordered approximately $683 million in restitution.
- The government initiated removal proceedings, alleging the conviction was an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i) (fraud or deceit offense with victim loss exceeding $10,000).

## Issues

1. Whether the $10,000 loss requirement in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i) must be assessed categorically by the elements of the offense of conviction.
2. Whether immigration adjudicators may instead conduct a circumstance-specific inquiry into the actual loss from the offense episode, using record evidence such as sentencing stipulations and restitution orders.
3. What limits apply to using non-element facts to prove the loss threshold in removal proceedings.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the judgment upholding Nijhawan’s removability.
- The Court held that the “loss to the victim or victims exceeds $10,000” language calls for a circumstance-specific inquiry into the actual loss from the offense of conviction, not a categorical elements-based test.
- The Court concluded that sentencing materials in the record—when tied to the counts of conviction—may establish the loss amount for § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i).
- Applying that approach, the Court found the stipulation and restitution order sufficient to show losses well above $10,000 attributable to the fraud counts of conviction.

## Legal Principles

- Under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i), the phrase “in which the loss to the victim or victims exceeds $10,000” is circumstance-specific and need not be an element of the criminal offense.
- The “fraud or deceit” component is assessed by the offense of conviction, but the monetary-loss threshold may be proved by reliable record evidence related to the conviction.
- Immigration adjudicators may consider documents such as charging materials, jury instructions/verdicts, sentencing findings, restitution orders, and defendant stipulations to determine loss.
- The loss determination must be tethered to the specific counts of conviction rather than uncharged, dismissed, or unrelated conduct.

## Conclusion

The Court held that the INA’s $10,000 loss threshold for aggravated-felony fraud is determined through a circumstance-specific inquiry grounded in record materials connected to the conviction, and it affirmed removal where sentencing documents established losses far exceeding that amount.


Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29 (2009)