Case: 18-60667 Document: 00515869853 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/20/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED May 20, 2021 No. 18-60667 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Rajen Maniar, Petitioner, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A098 275 719 Before Barksdale, Elrod, and Ho, Circuit Judges. James C. Ho, Circuit Judge: The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) determined that Rajen Maniar is removable from the United States for having committed an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(U). That provision defines “aggravated felony” to include, inter alia, any “attempt or conspiracy to commit an offense” enumerated in § 1101(a)(43). Maniar claims that the BIA erred because, he contends, § 1101(a)(43)(U) requires proof of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. But we need not decide that question, because we conclude that Maniar’s conviction for conspiracy to commit money laundering plainly constitutes an aggravated felony under Case: 18-60667 Document: 00515869853 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/20/2021 No. 18-60667 § 1101(a)(43)(D). And his remaining contentions are either meritless or unexhausted. Accordingly, the petition for review is denied in part and dismissed in part. I. Maniar lawfully entered the United States on an H1B visa. In 2017, he pleaded guilty to three federal offenses—including conspiracy to commit money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h)—and was ordered to pay over $26 million in restitution. He served just one month of imprisonment as a result of his cooperation with the United States Attorney’s office. The government then initiated removal proceedings against Maniar. The immigration judge (IJ) found Maniar removable under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) because he was “convicted of an aggravated felony.” 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). Specifically, the IJ determined that Maniar had committed an aggravated felony as defined in (1) § 1101(a)(43)(D) (an offense described in 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956–57 involving more than $10,000); (2) § 1101(a)(43)(M) (a crime of fraud, deceit, or tax evasion involving more than $10,000); and (3) § 1101(a)(43)(U) (an “attempt or conspiracy to commit an offense described in this paragraph”). In finding Maniar removable under the conspiracy provision, the IJ rejected Maniar’s argument that § 1101(a)(43)(U) covers only convictions that required proof of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. Cf. Whitfield v. United States, 543 U.S. 209, 211 (2005) (holding that a conviction for conspiracy to commit money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) does not require proof of an overt act). In short, the IJ determined that it is irrelevant that Maniar’s crime did not require proof of an overt act— it’s still an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(U). 2 Case: 18-60667 Document: 00515869853 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/20/2021 No. 18-60667 Maniar then attempted to avoid removal by adjusting his immigration status. As part of that process, Maniar sought to obtain a waiver of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h). But the IJ determined that …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals