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

attorneystatutepleawillfelonynaturalizationliens
attorneystatutepleawillfelonynaturalizationliens

Related Cases

Aragon-Ayon v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Yanez-Popp v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Tahir v. Lehmann
View Case »
Rico-Sorio v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Sesay v. AG of the United States
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Kawashima v. Holder

Facts

Petitioners, Akio and Fusako Kawashima, are natives and citizens of Japan who have been lawful permanent residents of the United States since June 21, 1984. In 1997, Mr. Kawashima pleaded guilty to one count of willfully making and subscribing a false tax return in violation of 26 U.S.C. �06(1). Mrs. Kawashima pleaded guilty to one count of aiding and assisting in the preparation of a false tax return in violation of 26 U.S.C. �06(2). Following their convictions, the Immigration and Naturalization Service charged the Kawashimas with being deportable from the United States as aliens who had been convicted of an aggravated felony.

Petitioners, Akio and Fusako Kawashima, are natives and citizens of Japan who have been lawful permanent residents of the United States since June 21, 1984. In 1997, Mr. Kawashima pleaded guilty to one count of willfully making and subscribing a false tax return in violation of 26 U.S.C. �06(1). Mrs. Kawashima pleaded guilty to one count of aiding and assisting in the preparation of a false tax return in violation of 26 U.S.C. �06(2). Following their convictions, the Immigration and Naturalization Service charged the Kawashimas with being deportable from the United States as aliens who had been convicted of an aggravated felony.

Issue

Whether the Kawashimas' convictions for violations of 26 U.S.C. 7206(1) and (2) respectively qualify as aggravated felonies under Clause (i) of 8 U.S.C. q01(a)(43)(M).

Whether the Kawashimas' convictions for violations of 26 U.S.C. 7206(1) and (2) respectively qualify as aggravated felonies under Clause (i) of 8 U.S.C. q01(a)(43)(M).

Rule

Violations of 26 U.S.C. 7206(1) and (2) are crimes 'involv[ing] fraud or deceit' under 8 U.S.C. q01(a)(43)(M)(i) and are therefore aggravated felonies as that term is defined in the Immigration and Nationality Act when the loss to the Government exceeds $10,000.

Violations of 26 U.S.C. 7206(1) and (2) are crimes 'involv[ing] fraud or deceit' under 8 U.S.C. q01(a)(43)(M)(i) and are therefore aggravated felonies as that term is defined in the Immigration and Nationality Act when the loss to the Government exceeds $10,000.

Analysis

The court applied a categorical approach to determine whether the Kawashimas' offenses involved fraud or deceit. It concluded that the elements of their convictions required a showing that they willfully made materially false statements, which necessarily entailed deceitful conduct. Therefore, the court found that their offenses fell within the definition of aggravated felonies under Clause (i).

The court applied a categorical approach to determine whether the Kawashimas' offenses involved fraud or deceit. It concluded that the elements of their convictions required a showing that they willfully made materially false statements, which necessarily entailed deceitful conduct.

Conclusion

The judgment upholding the removal order was affirmed. The Supreme Court held that the Kawashimas' convictions constituted aggravated felonies under the relevant immigration statute.

The judgment upholding the removal order was affirmed. The Supreme Court held that the Kawashimas' convictions constituted aggravated felonies under the relevant immigration statute.

Who won?

The U.S. Attorney General prevailed in the case because the Supreme Court affirmed the removal order, concluding that the Kawashimas' offenses involved deceit.

The U.S. Attorney General prevailed in the case because the Supreme Court affirmed the removal order, concluding that the Kawashimas' offenses involved deceit.

You must be