U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Deportation Case Weakens Rights of Immigrants 

Washington, D.C.—The United States Supreme Court on Monday issued a unanimous decision in Nijhawan v. Holder making it easier for immigration officials to deport individuals based on information not specifically determined by a jury or judge in assigning a criminal conviction. In March, the Asian American Justice Center and its affiliates—the Asian American Institute of Chicago, Ill., the Asian Law Caucus of San Francisco, Calif. and the Asian Pacific American Legal Center of Los Angeles, Calif.—joined the National Council of La Raza and 12 other organizations in filing a friend of the court brief to the Supreme Court in support of petitioner Manoj Nijhawan.

“We are disappointed that the Supreme Court has decided to eschew the categorical approach,” said Vincent A. Eng, deputy director of AAJC. “Giving courts the authority to look beyond the facts determined in a criminal conviction undermines individuals’ right to due process and fairness.”  

Nijhawan, who immigrated to the United States more than two decades ago, was convicted of conspiracy to commit money laundering at his place of employment. The jury had issued its guilty verdict under statutes that did not involve any assignment of amount of loss or amount laundered by Nijhawan. During sentencing, the court assigned a figure in excess of $10,000 for the purpose of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. While serving his sentence, deportation proceedings were initiated against Nijhawan. The immigration judge made the determination of deportability based not upon the language of the Immigration and Nationality Act or the criminal charge for which Nijhawan was convicted, but rather upon sentencing stipulations that the crime exceeded $10,000. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), noncitizens are deportable for “aggravated felonies,” which include offenses involving fraud that exceeds a loss of $10,000.

In an opinion delivered by Justice Breyer, the Supreme Court ruled against Nijhawan’s argument that deportation was not required under the INA because the criminal conviction was not based on a finding of monetary loss. The Court held that the monetary threshold is not a statutory element of the fraud crime, but rather is related to the specific circumstances in which the crime was committed on a particular occasion.      

 “As applied, the Court’s decision may yield different outcomes for individuals with similar offenses,” said Tuyet Duong, senior staff attorney for immigration at AAJC. “Immigrants and their counsel need to be able to make decisions that are based upon consistent and objective standards.”