Kawashima v. Holder
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 7, 2011
Decided February 21, 2012
Full case nameAkio Kawashima, et ux., Petitioners v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General
Docket no.10-577
Citations565 U.S. 478 (more)
132 S. Ct. 1166; 182 L. Ed. 2d 1; 2012 U.S. LEXIS 1084; 80 U.S.L.W. 4147
ArgumentOral argument
Case history
PriorAppeal 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 Kawashima v. Gonzales, 503 F.3d 997 (9th Cir. 2007, withdrawn); reconsidered[1] and fully reversed sub nom. Kawashima v. Mukasey, 530 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 2008, withdrawn); reconsidered[2] anew and affirmed 615 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2010); certiorari granted, 563 U.S. 1007 (2011).
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 Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
MajorityThomas, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Alito, Sotomayor
DissentGinsburg, joined by Breyer, Kagan

Kawashima v. Holder, 565 U.S. 478 (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][4]

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. 29, 129 S.Ct. 2294 (2009), granted certiorari while en banc rehearing request was pending.
  3. 1 2 3 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2011/2011_10_577
  4. ↑ Kawashima v. Holder, 565 U.S. 478 (2012).
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.