The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued an opinion Wednesday in *Odain Orlando Marsh v. U.S. Attorney General*, reviewing a petition challenging a Final Administrative Removal Order issued by the Department of Homeland Security. The case involves complex questions about what constitutes an aggravated felony under federal immigration law.
Odain Orlando Marsh, a native and citizen of Jamaica, was convicted of conspiracy to commit wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349. Following his conviction, DHS issued a Final Administrative Removal Order during expedited removal proceedings under Section 238(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1228(b).
The Department of Homeland Security determined that Marsh's wire fraud conspiracy conviction qualified as an "aggravated felony" because the amount of loss exceeded $10,000. Under immigration law, noncitizens convicted of aggravated felonies face mandatory removal and are subject to expedited removal proceedings that provide fewer procedural protections than standard removal proceedings.
Marsh challenged this determination before the Board of Immigration Appeals, arguing that his conviction should not be classified as an aggravated felony under INA § 101(a)(43)(U), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43). The BIA upheld DHS's decision, prompting Marsh to petition the Eleventh Circuit for review.
The case highlights the complex intersection between criminal law and immigration consequences for noncitizens. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, certain criminal convictions can trigger automatic removal proceedings, but courts must carefully analyze whether specific convictions meet the statutory definitions of aggravated felonies.
Wire fraud conspiracy cases often involve questions about loss amounts and whether the underlying conduct meets the specific elements required for aggravated felony classification. The $10,000 threshold mentioned in the case appears to be significant for determining whether the conviction rises to the level of an aggravated felony under the immigration statute.
The Eleventh Circuit panel consists of Circuit Judges Marcus and Wilson, along with District Judge Steve C. Jones of the Northern District of Georgia, sitting by designation. The case was filed January 22, 2026, and is designated "NOT FOR PUBLICATION," meaning it will not serve as binding precedent for future cases.
Expedited removal proceedings under Section 238(b) apply to noncitizens who are not lawful permanent residents and who have been convicted of aggravated felonies. These proceedings allow for faster removal than traditional immigration court proceedings but provide fewer opportunities for relief from removal.
The Board of Immigration Appeals, which initially heard Marsh's case, is the highest administrative tribunal for interpreting and applying immigration laws. BIA decisions can be appealed to federal circuit courts of appeals, as Marsh has done in this case.
The Eleventh Circuit has jurisdiction over immigration appeals from Florida, Georgia, and Alabama. The court frequently handles cases involving the intersection of criminal convictions and immigration consequences, as many noncitizens face removal proceedings following criminal convictions.
For Marsh, the stakes are high. If his petition is denied, he faces removal to Jamaica and would be barred from returning to the United States. Noncitizens removed based on aggravated felony convictions face permanent bars to reentry and are ineligible for most forms of immigration relief.
The case also illustrates broader issues in immigration law regarding the consequences of criminal convictions for noncitizens. Even relatively minor criminal offenses can have severe immigration consequences, including removal and permanent bars to reentry.
While the specific details of Marsh's wire fraud conspiracy conviction are not fully outlined in the available court documents, the case appears to turn on whether the conviction meets the specific statutory requirements for classification as an aggravated felony under immigration law.
The Eleventh Circuit's decision in this case will determine whether Marsh's removal order stands or whether he will receive additional proceedings to challenge his removal. Given the "NOT FOR PUBLICATION" designation, the decision will not create binding precedent but will resolve Marsh's individual case.
Immigration attorneys closely watch such cases as they navigate the complex landscape of criminal immigration consequences for their clients. The intersection of criminal law and immigration law continues to evolve as courts interpret statutory definitions and requirements for removal proceedings.