Khalid Khalayleh v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that Chevron deference to agency interpretation was not required “because there is no ambiguity with respect to the meaning of the statutory language”
• holding that Chevron deference to agency interpretation was not required “because there is no ambiguity with respect to the meaning of the statutory language”
• holding that the $10,000 threshold was met because “[t]he ‘offense’ of conviction was the entire scheme charged in Count Two of the indictment” and “the ‘loss’ to be measured is the loss resulting from that scheme”
• finding the operative language of the pertinent INA provisions unam- biguous
• finding the operative language of the pertinent INA provisions unambiguous
• where alien pleaded guilty to one count of the indictment which listed a check in the amount of $9,308 but agreed to pay restitution as determined by the sentencing court, the loss from the total scheme to defraud involving other checks could be counted

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).