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

defendantstatuteappealplearegulationfelonyrestitution
defendantstatuteappealplearegulationfelonyrestitution

Related Cases

Solis-Campozano v. United States
View Case »
Solorio-Ruiz v. Sessions
View Case »
McFarlane; U.S. v.
View Case »
Beer v. Islamic Republic of Iran
View Case »
Greenidge v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Mowlana v. Lynch

Facts

Jeylani Shariff Mowlana, a native of Somalia, was ordered removed from the United States after the Board of Immigration Appeals concluded that he had been convicted of an aggravated felony. Mowlana was admitted to the United States as a refugee in 2000 and became a lawful permanent resident in 2002. In January 2011, he pleaded guilty to the unauthorized use, transfer, acquisition, and possession of food stamp benefits valued at $5,000 or more, in violation of 7 U.S.C. 2024(b). He was ordered to make restitution of $206,634.68 to the Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service.

Jeylani Shariff Mowlana, a native of Somalia, was ordered removed from the United States after the Board of Immigration Appeals concluded that he had been convicted of an aggravated felony. Mowlana was admitted to the United States as a refugee in 2000 and became a lawful permanent resident in 2002. In January 2011, he pleaded guilty to the unauthorized use, transfer, acquisition, and possession of food stamp benefits valued at $5,000 or more, in violation of 7 U.S.C. 2024(b). He was ordered to make restitution of $206,634.68 to the Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service.

Issue

Did Mowlana's conviction under 7 U.S.C. 2024(b) involve fraud or deceit, thereby constituting an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(M)(i)?

Did Mowlana's conviction under 7 U.S.C. 2024(b) involve fraud or deceit, thereby constituting an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(M)(i)?

Rule

An aggravated felony includes any offense that involves fraud or deceit in which the loss to the victim or victims exceeds $10,000. A violation of 7 U.S.C. 2024(b) requires proof that a defendant used, transferred, acquired, altered, or possessed benefits contrary to SNAP statutes or regulations, and knew that his conduct was contrary to the statutes or regulations.

An aggravated felony includes any offense that involves fraud or deceit in which the loss to the victim or victims exceeds $10,000. A violation of 7 U.S.C. 2024(b) requires proof that a defendant used, transferred, acquired, altered, or possessed benefits contrary to SNAP statutes or regulations, and knew that his conduct was contrary to the statutes or regulations.

Analysis

The court applied the categorical approach to determine whether Mowlana's conviction under 2024(b) involved fraud or deceit. It concluded that the elements of the statute of conviction categorically fit within the federal definition of an aggravated felony. The court reasoned that Mowlana's conduct, which involved allowing customers to use SNAP benefits for store credit, constituted a deliberate deception of the government and impaired its lawful functions.

The court applied the categorical approach to determine whether Mowlana's conviction under 2024(b) involved fraud or deceit. It concluded that the elements of the statute of conviction categorically fit within the federal definition of an aggravated felony. The court reasoned that Mowlana's conduct, which involved allowing customers to use SNAP benefits for store credit, constituted a deliberate deception of the government and impaired its lawful functions.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the BIA's decision, concluding that Mowlana's conviction was for a crime involving fraud or deceit, and therefore, he was properly classified as an aggravated felon subject to removal.

The court affirmed the BIA's decision, concluding that Mowlana's conviction was for a crime involving fraud or deceit, and therefore, he was properly classified as an aggravated felon subject to removal.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case because the court upheld the BIA's determination that Mowlana's conviction involved fraud or deceit, which met the criteria for an aggravated felony.

The government prevailed in the case because the court upheld the BIA's determination that Mowlana's conviction involved fraud or deceit, which met the criteria for an aggravated felony.

You must be