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

felony
felony

Related Cases

Shewchun v. Holder
View Case »
Murillo-Prado v. Holder
View Case »
Simo v. Gonzales
View Case »
Mena-Flores v. Holder
View Case »
Apouviepseakoda v. Gonzales
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Kharana v. Gonzales

Facts

In August 2001, Petitioner Bhupinder Kharana, a lawful permanent resident, was charged in state court with four counts of obtaining money by false pretenses in violation of California Penal Code 532. She pled nolo contendere to all counts, which alleged that she defrauded four victims of amounts exceeding $10,000. After her fraudulent scheme was discovered, Kharana repaid the stolen money. The Department of Homeland Security charged her with removability, asserting that her conviction constituted an aggravated felony.

In August 2001, Petitioner Bhupinder Kharana ('Petitioner' or 'Kharana'), a lawful permanent resident of the United States, was charged in a state court with four counts of obtaining money by false pretenses in violation of California Penal Code 532. The felony complaint alleged that Petitioner, by 'false and fraudulent representation[s] and pretense[s], defraud[ed]' four victims of $ 11,000, $ 23,000, $ 17,000, and $ 26,250, respectively. Petitioner pled nolo contendere to all four counts. At some point thereafter, Petitioner repaid the stolen money.

Issue

Whether Kharana's offense qualifies as an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act, specifically if the loss to the victims exceeded $10,000 despite her repayment of the stolen money.

Whether Kharana's offense qualifies as an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act, specifically if the loss to the victims exceeded $10,000 despite her repayment of the stolen money.

Rule

Under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(M)(i), an aggravated felony includes an offense that involves fraud or deceit in which the loss to the victim or victims exceeds $10,000.

Under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(M)(i), an aggravated felony includes an offense that involves fraud or deceit in which the loss to the victim or victims exceeds $10,000.

Analysis

The court applied a two-step approach to determine if Kharana's conviction constituted an aggravated felony. It compared the generic crime of aggravated felony with the crime of conviction. The court found that Kharana's conviction under California Penal Code 532 involved fraud or deceit and that the felony complaint indicated losses exceeding $10,000. The court concluded that Kharana's repayment of the stolen money after detection did not reduce the loss for the purposes of determining her removability.

The court applied a two-step approach to determine if Kharana's conviction constituted an aggravated felony. It compared the generic crime of aggravated felony with the crime of conviction. The court found that Kharana's conviction under California Penal Code 532 involved fraud or deceit and that the felony complaint indicated losses exceeding $10,000. The court concluded that Kharana's repayment of the stolen money after detection did not reduce the loss for the purposes of determining her removability.

Conclusion

The court denied Kharana's petition for review, affirming that her conviction constituted an aggravated felony under the INA.

The petition for review is DENIED.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case, as the court upheld the BIA's decision that Kharana's conviction was an aggravated felony due to the nature of the crime and the amount of loss involved.

The government prevailed in the case, as the court upheld the BIA's decision that Kharana's conviction was an aggravated felony due to the nature of the crime and the amount of loss involved.

You must be