Nijhawan v. Holder

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the “fraud and deceit” provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i) calls for a circumstance-specific inquiry that requires fact finding
• concluding that the circumstance-specific approach applied when factual qualifier grammatically modified reference to defendant’s conduct as opposed to elements of the offense
• concluding that the circumstance-specific approach applied when factual qualifier grammatically modified reference to defendant’s conduct as opposed to elements of the offense
• holding that an IJ is not limited to considering the evidentiary materials permitted under the modified categorical approach when determining whether the loss involved in a prior fraud or deceit conviction amounted to at least $10,000
• concluding that there was “nothing unfair” about the IJ relying on the petitioner’s “own stipulation, produced for sentencing purposes,” and on the sentencing court’s restitution order to find the requisite loss amount
• holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43) “contains some language that refers to generic crimes and some language that almost certainly refers to the specific circumstances in which a crime was committed,” for which the categorical approach is inappropriate

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).