PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 17-3001 _____________ CHIAO FANG KU, AKA Chiao Fang Ronan, AKA Anna Ronan, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent _____________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A077-160-352) Immigration Judge: Walter A. Durling ______________ Argued September 12, 2018 ______________ Before: JORDAN, VANASKIE, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges The Honorable Judge Vanaskie transmitted the opinion to the Clerk for filing prior to retiring from the bench on January 1, 2019. Due to the intervening holiday, the opinion has been entered on the docket by the Clerk this day. (Opinion Filed: January 3, 2019) Thomas M. Griffin [Argued] Surin & Griffin 718 Arch Street Suite 701N Philadelphia, PA 19106 Counsel for Petitioner Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General Nancy E. Friedman, Senior Litigation Counsel Justin R. Markel, Senior Litigation Counsel Gregory A. Pennington, Jr. [Argued] United States Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation Civil Division P.O. Box 878 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Counsel for Respondent ________________ OPINION ________________ VANASKIE, Circuit Judge. Seeking to remain in this country, Chiao Fang Ku petitions for review of a final order of removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA” or “Board”). The Board determined that Ku had committed an aggravated felony 2 under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i) because her prior conviction for wire fraud constituted an offense involving fraud or deceit in which the loss to the victims exceeded $10,000. The Board also found that Ku’s wire fraud conviction constituted a “crime involving moral turpitude” under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) such that, without a waiver, she is ineligible for an adjustment of status. Although the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) granted Ku a waiver of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h)(1)(B) based on the extreme hardship that her deportation would cause her U.S. Citizen children, the Board reversed that decision. Ku challenges each of the Board’s decisions. In Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29 (2009), the Court held that determination of whether a fraud offense involved loss to the victims of $10,000 or more requires a circumstance- specific approach, allowing the immigration court to review both the charging document and sentencing-related materials to determine the loss amount attributable to the offense. On the facts of this case, we find that the undisputed loss to the victims of well over $10,000 was sufficiently tethered to Ku’s wire fraud conviction such that the conviction qualifies as an aggravated felony. Furthermore, we find no error in the Board’s determination that wire fraud constitutes a crime of moral turpitude. Lastly, regarding the waiver of admissibility, we do not have jurisdiction to review the discretionary denial of a waiver under § 212(h) of the INA. Accordingly, we will deny in part and dismiss in part Ku’s petition for review. I. Ku is a native and citizen of Taiwan. She was admitted to the United States in 1997 and gained status as a lawful permanent resident ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals