U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals

US v. PRINCE-OYIBO (02/27/03 - No. 02-4104)

"Marvel Johnson Prince-Oyibo appeals his conviction on one count of travel document fraud. Prior to trial, the Government moved in limine to exclude both the results of Prince-Oyibo's polygraph examination, and evidence that he suffered persecution as a Christian in his predominantly Muslim home country of Nigeria. During the course of the jury trial, the district court granted both portions of the Government's motion, thereby excluding both the polygraph evidence and the evidence of persecution. In his appeal, Prince-Oyibo asserts that the evidentiary exclusions constitute reversible error. For the reasons stated below, we disagree and affirm."

The full text of this opinion can be found on Findlaw.com at  http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/4th/024104p.html

***

U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals

US v. MENDOZA-MATA (02/25/03 - No. 01-51147)

"Mario Mendoza-Mata appeals from the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and to dismiss the indictment entered against him for illegal reentry into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. For the following reasons we affirm.

The full text of this opinion can be found on Findlaw.com at  http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/5th/0151147p.pdf

***

Sharma v. Ashcroft (3rd Circuit Court of Appeals)

In this case the Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that a conviction for bank fraud and conspiracy was reasonably determined by the Board of Immigration Appeals to fit within the definition of "aggravated felony."

The Sharmas, a father and son, both permanent residents for two decades, were convicted of bank fraud and conspiracy. The Sharmas were found to have schemed to defraud banks of over $1,500,000 by procuring loans and lines of credit by means of false representations regarding their financial resources.

The father and son were each sentenced to 33 months in jail to be followed by three years of supervised release. They were also ordered to pay $63,734 in restitution to one of the conspiracy victims, the Department of Public Welfare of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

An immigration judge found the Sharmas deportable and the BIA agreed. The BIA held that the Sharmas’ bank fraud convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 1344 were aggravated felonies as defined by Section 101(a)(43)(M)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act because the offenses involved fraud or deceit and the record of conviction established that the losses to the victims exceeded $10,000. The BIA also held that the Sharmas’ conspiracy convictions came within the definition of aggravated felony found at INA section 101(a)(43)(U) in that the conviction related to an attempt or conspiracy to commit offenses described in INA sections 101(a)(43)(M)(i) and (ii).

The Sharmas argued to the BIA that their bank fraud conviction did not meet the INA's definition of "fraud and deceit". The BIA found, however, that the plain meaning of the law covered the bank fraud statute under which the Sharmas were convicted.