San Diego International Law Journal

Document Type



The purpose of this Article is to draw attention to the government’s misinterpretation of the central holding in Nijhawan v. Holder and how it has led to the improper dilution of evidentiary standards in removal proceedings when determining the $10,000 threshold loss requirement under section 101(a)(43)(M)(i) of the INA [hereinafter “M(i)”]. Section II of this article provides a brief doctrinal overview and summary of my proposed procedural methodology; sections III and IV provide essential background information regarding the Supreme Court’s important pre-Nijhawan opinions and the inconsistent methods circuit courts have applied when calculating the monetary threshold under the fraud or deceit deportation statute prior to Nijhawan; section V provides a detailed analysis of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Nijhawan; section VI analyzes post-Nijhawan cases and highlights the misapplication of the Nijhawan rule; and section VII discusses and articulates what evidence the immigration court should admit in a circumstance-specific analysis when determining the loss during a deportation proceeding.