U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals

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

"Marvel Johnson Prince-Oyi b o appeals his conviction on one count of travel document fraud. Prior to trial, the Government moved in limine to exclude b oth the results of Prince-Oyi b o's polygraph exam ina tion, and evidence that he suffered persecution as a Christian in his predom ina ntly Muslim home country of Nigeria. During the course of the jury trial, the district court granted b oth portions of the Government's motion, there b y excluding b oth the polygraph evidence and the evidence of persecution. In his appeal, Prince-Oyi b o asserts that the evidentiary exclusions constitute reversi b le error. For the reasons stated b elow, we disagree and affi rm ."

The full text of this opinion can b e 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 p lea and to dismiss the indictment entered against him for illegal reentry into the United States in v iola tion of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. For the following reasons we affi rm .

The full text of this opinion can b e 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 b ank fraud and conspiracy was reasona b ly dete rm ined b y the Board of Immigration Appeals to fit within the definition of "aggravated felony."

The Sha rm as, a father and son, b oth pe rm anent residents for two decades, were convicted of b ank fraud and conspiracy. The Sha rm as were found to have schemed to defraud b anks of over $1,500,000 b y procuring loans and lines of credit b y means of false representations regarding their f ina ncial resources.

The father and son were each sentenced to 33 months in jail to b e followed b y three years of supervised re lea se. They were also ordered to pay $63,734 in restitution to one of the conspiracy victims, the Department of Pu b lic Welfare of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania .

An immigration judge found the Sha rm as deporta b le and the BIA agreed. The BIA held that the Sha rm as’ b ank fraud convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 1344 were aggravated felonies as defined b y Section 101(a)(43)(M)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act b ecause the offenses involved fraud or deceit and the record of conviction esta b lished that the losses to the victims exceeded $10,000. The BIA also held that the Sha rm as’ 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 descri b ed in INA sections 101(a)(43)(M)(i) and (ii).

The Sha rm as argued to the BIA that their b ank 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 b ank fraud statute under which the Sha rm as were convicted.