Source: cases/18usc1341/us-557-29-nijhawan-v-holder.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/us/volume_557/0029_01/index.html
We have found no widely applicable federal fraud statute that contains á relevant monetary loss threshold.
casedsl 1
case /us/557/0029-01
name Nijhawan v. Holder
cite 557 U.S. 29 (2009)
# IR court field says: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
court Supreme Court of the United States
date 2009-06-15
url catalog/cases/us/volume_557/0029_01/index.html
source ir/caselaw/us_557.jsonl sha1=9c61d5b5e9f00fa97afcc0b6a37437e81dc1a62a chars=38673
law 18usc1341
role comparator
posture immigration removal (civil); noncitizen previously convicted by a jury of conspiring to commit mail, wire and bank fraud and money laundering; IJ, BIA and CA3 held the conviction an INA "aggravated felony" (fraud or deceit with victim loss over $10,000); certiorari on whether the loss threshold is an element of the prior offense (categorical) or a circumstance-specific fact; 1341 is cited only as a fraud statute with no loss element
result not-decided
element property : not-reached
variant loss-amount/no-statutory-loss-threshold
count prior conviction: conspiracy (18 U.S.C. 371) to commit mail fraud, wire fraud, bank fraud and money laundering
fact @1401..1578 [supports] | In 2002 he was indicted for conspiring to commit mail fraud, wire fraud, bank fraud, and money laundering. 18 U. S. C. §§371, 1341, 1343, 1344, 1956(h). A jury found him guilty.
fact @1579..1728 [cuts-against absent] | But because none of these statutes requires a finding of any particular amount of victim loss, the jury made no finding about the amount of the loss.
rule @14376..14482 | We have found no widely applicable federal fraud statute that contains á relevant monetary loss threshold.
gloss The only thing said about 1341: it (like 1343, 1344, 371) has no monetary-loss element, which is why the INA's $10,000 threshold must be read as circumstance-specific rather than categorical. Consistent with the law file's not-required note under `property` (no loss requirement), but this Court decides nothing about any 1341 element; the prior conviction's validity is not in issue. Polarity here only means "the prior offense was a fraud conviction" / "no loss finding was made".
misfit 1341 is a yardstick in an INA aggravated-felony case (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(M)(i)); `role comparator` cannot name the compared law, and `result` for "the claim under this statute" has no meaning (not-decided used; the Government won the removal question). Known items 1 and 10. Arguably `background`: the statute appears twice in the majority opinion, once in the facts and once in a string cite.
misfit The one proposition about 1341 is negative and structural ("victim loss amount is NOT an element") and is stated for a list of ten federal fraud statutes at once; there is no declared id for loss/damage, so it sits under `property` (whose law-file note says net loss is not required) as a not-reached comparator block. Known item 2.
misfit The prior conviction was for conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. 371 with mail fraud as one of four objects, not a substantive 1341 conviction; the notation has no way to mark an inchoate/conspiracy vehicle for the statute.
misfit The actual holdings (circumstance-specific reading of (M)(i); immigration judge may rely on a sentencing stipulation and restitution order under a clear-and-convincing standard; loss must be tied to the counts of conviction) belong to the INA and are not recorded.