Plea-Based Admissions & Forfeiture Figures as Clear-and-Convincing Proof of the $10,000 Loss Threshold
Commentary on Roman Goltiescu v. U.S. Attorney General, 24-12552 (11th Cir. May 13 2025)

1. Introduction

Roman Goltiescu, a lawful permanent resident from Moldova, petitioned the Eleventh Circuit to review the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) affirmance of his removal order. The removal rested on his 2013 federal conviction for conspiracy to commit wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1349). Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) an offense that “involves fraud or deceit in which the loss to the victim or victims exceeds $10,000”—including a conspiracy to commit such an offense—is an “aggravated felony” that triggers removability (§ 1101(a)(43)(M)(i)&(U); § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii)).

The crux of the case was evidentiary: did the Government prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Goltiescu’s offense caused losses > $10,000? Goltiescu maintained there was no such proof because the wire-fraud information charged no specific loss amount. The IJ and BIA, however, relied on (i) the plea agreement’s admissions—including an agreed restitution/forfeiture figure of $148,477—and (ii) the sentencing court’s findings to conclude the $10,000 threshold was easily surpassed.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• The Eleventh Circuit (per curiam, non-argument calendar) denied the petition for review.
• Applying Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29 (2009), the Court reaffirmed a “circumstance-specific” inquiry: immigration tribunals may look beyond the statute and consider the entire criminal-case record to determine loss amount.
• The panel held that Goltiescu’s explicit written admissions in the plea agreement, together with an agreed forfeiture/restitution amount of $148,477, provided clear and convincing evidence that losses exceeded $10,000.
• Obasohan v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 479 F.3d 785 (11th Cir. 2007) was distinguished: unlike in Obasohan, the loss figure here derived solely from conduct underlying the single count of conviction and was expressly admitted by the defendant.
• Accordingly, the conviction was an aggravated felony under INA § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i), rendering Goltiescu removable.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited & Their Influence

1. Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29 (2009)
   • Held that sub-paragraph (M)(i)’s “loss to the victim…exceeds $10,000” calls for a circumstance-specific, not categorical, inquiry.
   • Allowed immigration courts to review sentencing materials, stipulations, and other documents.
   → The Eleventh Circuit relied on Nijhawan to justify considering the plea agreement, factual proffer, and forfeiture/restitution provisions.
2. Obasohan v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 479 F.3d 785 (11th Cir. 2007)
   • Previously limited the use of restitution orders when those orders encompassed conduct beyond the convicted count.
   • Overruled in part by Nijhawan on categorical-versus-circumstance issues.
   • Here, the Court distinguished Obasohan on two grounds: (a) government concession there had encompassed extraneous loss; (b) defendant had not admitted loss. In contrast, Goltiescu did admit loss, and the figure related strictly to the conspiracy count.
3. Garcia-Simisterra v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 984 F.3d 977 (11th Cir. 2020)
   • Reiterated that courts may consult the “entire record of conviction.”
   • Provided the lens through which to view IJ/BIA fact-finding (substantial-evidence standard).
4. Balogun v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 425 F.3d 1356 (11th Cir. 2005)
   • Confirmed circuit jurisdiction to review aggravated-felony determinations.

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Standard & Burden of Proof
   • Under § 1229a(c)(3)(A) the Government must establish removability by “clear and convincing evidence.”
   • The IJ found—and the BIA affirmed—that admissions in the pleadings satisfy this burden.
2. Scope of Permissible Evidence
   • Citing Nijhawan and circuit cases, the Court endorsed a broad “circumstance-specific” look at sentencing-phase documents.
   • This includes plea agreements, factual bases, PSRs, forfeiture agreements, sentencing memoranda, and court findings—provided they relate to the convicted count.
3. Admissibility & Reliability of Plea Admissions
   • Written plea agreements, signed by defendant and counsel, are deemed highly probative.
   • The Court rejected the argument that a non-binding plea somehow undercuts its evidentiary value; the key is the defendant’s unambiguous acknowledgment.
4. Forfeiture vs. Restitution Orders
   • Even if a formal forfeiture judgment was not entered, the agreed forfeiture amount in the plea constituted an admission regarding gross proceeds and, by extension, loss.
   • The equivalence between the $148,477 forfeiture statement and the restitution order made any distinction immaterial.
5. Distinguishing Adverse Precedent
   • The Court meticulously explained why Obasohan did not control—foreclosing petitioner’s strongest analogy.

3.3 Likely Impact of the Decision

• Elevated Evidentiary Value of Plea Documents
  Immigration judges within the Eleventh Circuit may more readily treat plea agreements, factual proffers, and forfeiture stipulations as sufficient—standing alone—to establish the § 1101(a)(43)(M) loss threshold.
• Reduced Litigation over Loss Amounts
  Non-citizen defendants who have signed detailed factual bases with loss amounts will find it difficult to litigate removability on § 1101(a)(43)(M) grounds.
• Circumstance-Specific Inquiry Clarified
  The opinion further cements how far tribunals may look into sentencing-phase materials post-Nijhawan without violating the Supreme Court’s “tethering” requirement.
• Guidance on Obasohan’s Limited Reach
  Practitioners can expect Obasohan arguments to fail unless they can show (1) the restitution/forfeiture figure covers extraneous conduct or (2) there was no admission of loss.
• Plea-Bargain Strategy Considerations
  Criminal defense counsel must appreciate that agreeing to restitution or forfeiture > $10,000 in a fraud case can have automatic and near-irrevocable immigration consequences.

5. Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Roman Goltiescu v. U.S. Attorney General crystallizes an important evidentiary rule: a defendant’s own plea-based admissions and agreed forfeiture figures can, without more, supply the clear-and-convincing proof needed to satisfy the $10,000 loss requirement under INA § 1101(a)(43)(M). By distinguishing earlier circuit precedent and leaning heavily on the Supreme Court’s Nijhawan framework, the Court endorsed a pragmatic, record-oriented analysis that privileges reliable, self-inculpatory statements.

For immigration advocates, the ruling underscores the near-finality of stipulated loss amounts in fraud pleas. For prosecutors and immigration judges, it offers a streamlined template for proving aggravated-felony removability. In the broader doctrinal landscape, the decision tightens the nexus between federal criminal proceedings and subsequent immigration consequences, confirming that what defendants admit in the criminal courtroom will almost certainly follow them into removal proceedings.

© 2025 — Prepared for educational purposes. All rights reserved.