Kawashima v. Holder

Kawashima v. Holder

Argued November 7, 2011
Decided February 21, 2012
Full case name Akio Kawashima, et ux., Petitioners v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General
Docket nos. 10-577
Citations

565 U.S. ___ (more)

Prior history Appeal of deportation order denied (Bd. Immigr. App., 200?); reversed in part sub nom. Kawashima v. Gonzales 503 F.3d 997 (9th Cir. 2007, withdrawn); reconsidered[1] and fully reversed sub nom. Kawashima v. Mukasey, 530 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 2008, withdrawn); reconsidered[2] anew and affirmed 615 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir., 2010); certiorari granted 563 U.S. ___ (2011).
Argument Oral argument
Holding
"Filing a false tax return in violation of 26 U.S.C. Section 7206 qualifies as an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act when the Government's revenue loss exceeds $10,000."[3] Ninth circuit affirmed.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John G. Roberts
Case opinions
Majority Thomas, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Alito, Sotomayor
Dissent Ginsburg, joined by Breyer, Kagan

Kawashima v. Holder, 565 U.S. ___ (2012), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that "filing a false tax return in violation of 26 U.S.C. Section 7206 qualifies as an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act when the Government's revenue loss exceeds $10,000."[3]

Background

Akio and Fusako Kawashima, Japanese nationals who legally resided in the U.S., owned the successful Nihon Seibutsu Kagaku restaurant in Thousand Oaks, California which filed false tax returns.

Opinion of the Court

In a 6–3 opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court held that "filing a false tax return in violation of 26 U.S.C. Section 7206 qualifies as an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act when the Government's revenue loss exceeds $10,000."[3]

See also

References

  1. ↑ In light of Navarro-Lopez v. Gonzales, 503 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2007), decided the day after the initial decision in Kawashima.
  2. ↑ In light of Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. ___ 129 S.Ct. 2294 (2009), granted certiorari while en banc rehearing request was pending.
  3. 1 2 3 http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2011/2011_10_577

External links

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Monday, February 15, 2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.