Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

statutehabeas corpuswillfelonydeportationappellant
habeas corpusfelonydeportationappellant

Related Cases

Mapoy v. Carroll
View Case »
Sandoval-Gomez v. Holder
View Case »
Elashi v. Sabol
View Case »
Saavedra-Figueroa v. Holder
View Case »
Harbin v. Sessions
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Evangelista v. Ashcroft

Facts

The petitioner-appellant, Louis Evangelista, is a sixty-three-year-old native and citizen of Italy. He has been a lawful permanent resident of the United States since 1961. In 1995, a superseding indictment was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York charging Evangelista with various federal tax crimes involving events that occurred as early as 1988. Evangelista was charged with 'willfully attempting to evade and defeat [an] income tax' in violation of 26 U.S.C. 7201. A jury found him guilty on all counts, and he was subsequently convicted.

The petitioner-appellant, Louis Evangelista, is a sixty-three-year-old native and citizen of Italy. He has been a lawful permanent resident of the United States since 1961. In 1995, a superseding indictment was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York charging Evangelista with various federal tax crimes involving events that occurred as early as 1988.

Issue

Whether Evangelista's conviction for tax evasion under 26 U.S.C. 7201 constitutes an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(M)(ii) and whether he is eligible for a waiver of deportation under former 8 U.S.C. 1182(c).

Whether Evangelista's conviction for tax evasion under 26 U.S.C. 7201 constitutes an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(M)(ii) and whether he is eligible for a waiver of deportation under former 8 U.S.C. 1182(c).

Rule

Any alien who is convicted of an aggravated felony at any time after admission to the United States is deportable under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). An offense described in section 7201 of Title 26 (relating to tax evasion) in which the revenue loss to the Government exceeds $10,000 is considered an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(M)(ii).

Any alien who is convicted of an aggravated felony at any time after admission to the United States is deportable under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii).

Analysis

The court concluded that the terms 'defeating a tax' and 'evading a tax' are interchangeable, and thus, Evangelista's conviction for attempting to defeat a tax falls within the definition of an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(M)(ii). The court found no ambiguity in the statute's language, which allowed for the conclusion that Evangelista was deportable. Furthermore, the court held that the repeal of the waiver under former 8 U.S.C. 1182(c) was not impermissibly retroactive as the removal proceedings commenced after the repeal.

The court concluded that the terms 'defeating a tax' and 'evading a tax' are interchangeable, and thus, Evangelista's conviction for attempting to defeat a tax falls within the definition of an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(M)(ii).

Conclusion

The court affirmed the district court's judgment dismissing the alien's petition for a writ of habeas corpus to prevent his deportation.

The court affirmed the district court's judgment dismissing the alien's petition for a writ of habeas corpus to prevent his deportation.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case because the court upheld the finding that Evangelista's conviction constituted an aggravated felony, making him deportable under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The government prevailed in the case because the court upheld the finding that Evangelista's conviction constituted an aggravated felony, making him deportable under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

You must be