(COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA) — For noncitizens convicted in federal “ATM jackpotting” cases, the most realistic immigration defense often shifts from “stopping removability” to seeking protection-based relief (most commonly CAT protection) and managing detention and timing. That is the legal backdrop to a South Carolina federal case involving an ATM jackpotting scheme tied to Rock Hill and Columbia, South Carolina, where two Venezuelan nationals were convicted of conspiracy and computer-related offenses and now face deportation.
Because federal cybercrime and fraud convictions can trigger mandatory immigration consequences, defense strategy must be coordinated across criminal and immigration counsel early. Even after sentencing, key choices can affect whether a conviction is treated as an aggravated felony, whether detention is mandatory, and whether any relief remains available in Immigration Court (EOIR).
A plea that seems “good” for criminal sentencing can still be disastrous for immigration. Loss amounts, restitution, and specific offense language can control removability and relief eligibility.
1. Overview of the case
Federal prosecutors described a multi-state “jackpotting” operation targeting older ATMs across the Southeast. “Jackpotting” generally refers to physically accessing an ATM and installing malware so the machine is forced to dispense cash on command.
Here, the core convictions were for conspiracy and computer crimes. Those labels matter for immigration because many computer-crime and fraud theories can be treated as fraud or deceit offenses with a “loss” amount, a category that may become an aggravated felony under INA § 101(a)(43)(M)(i) if the loss to victims exceeds $10,000.
Once a noncitizen has a qualifying conviction, the downstream path often includes: (1) completion of federal custody (or time served), (2) an ICE detainer or direct ICE custody transfer, and (3) removal proceedings before EOIR. In many cases, detention can be mandatory depending on the conviction and charging ground.
For Immigration Court process basics, EOIR resources are available at EOIR.
2. Individuals involved
The defendants were identified as Luz Granados, 34, and Johan Gonzalez-Jimenez, 40, both Venezuelan nationals. In multi-defendant federal cases, courts and immigration authorities still evaluate each person separately.
Several factors often drive different outcomes for co-defendants:
- Role and conduct. The person who installed malware, recruited others, or transported equipment can face higher exposure.
- Criminal history. Prior convictions can raise sentencing ranges and complicate immigration bond.
- Cooperation and acceptance. Cooperation can reduce criminal sentencing. It does not guarantee immigration relief.
- Custody timing. A “time served” sentence can accelerate transfer to ICE custody. A longer sentence delays immigration court, but may also change detention dynamics later.
Even when two defendants face the same statute, the immigration analysis can diverge based on how the record describes loss, intent, and victim impact.
3. Location and scope of the scheme
Investigators tied the scheme to multiple states in the Southeast, including Rock Hill and Columbia, South Carolina, and locations in Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia. Multi-state conduct can increase federal attention for several reasons.
Key prosecutorial considerations include venue selection, potential loss aggregation across events, and task-force resources that may be deployed for multi-jurisdiction patterns.
Readers tracking federal charging posture can consult official Department of Justice materials at DOJ. For statutes frequently used in computer-crime cases, Cornell’s statute library is a helpful reference point at 18 U.S.C. § 1030.
4. How the scheme operated
According to the case description, the operation targeted older-model ATMs. The method was physical and technical and involved several steps.
- After-hours access. The perpetrators allegedly removed ATM casings when businesses were closed.
- Hardware connection. They connected a laptop directly to ATM internals.
- Malware installation. Malware was installed to bypass security controls.
- Forced dispensing. ATMs were compelled to dispense cash until depleted.
A key factual point for both criminal and immigration litigation is who suffered the financial loss. Here, the reporting indicates the stolen money came from banks that owned the ATMs, not directly from customer accounts. Customers may still experience disruptions, locked machines, or delayed access, but the “victim” for loss calculations is typically the financial institution or ATM operator.
From a defense perspective, prosecutors in jackpotting cases often rely on combinations of surveillance video, license-plate data, tool-mark or fingerprint evidence, laptop forensic images, malware signatures, ATM service logs, and cooperator statements. Challenging chain-of-custody, attribution, and loss proof can be central themes.
5. Sentencing and restitution
Federal sentencing usually involves separate concepts that defendants sometimes conflate: incarceration, supervised release, and restitution. Each has distinct immigration implications.
- Incarceration (or time served). The custody term imposed by the judge.
- Supervised release. Post-release supervision with conditions.
- Restitution. A court order to repay victims, often the bank or ATM owner.
In this case: “U.S. District Judge Mary Geiger Lewis sentenced Granados to time served, and she remains in custody awaiting deportation while ordered to pay $126,340 in restitution.”
The court also imposed that “Gonzalez-Jimenez received an 18-month federal prison sentence and was ordered to pay $285,100 in restitution, with deportation to follow after completing his sentence.”
Restitution matters for immigration because it can be used as evidence of loss amount. The Board of Immigration Appeals has allowed immigration courts to consider sentencing-related materials when evaluating loss for INA § 101(a)(43)(M)(i). See Matter of Babaisakov, 24 I&N Dec. 306 (BIA 2007).
A practical custody point: a person can be held “awaiting deportation” even after the criminal sentence ends, because immigration detention is civil custody. Post-order detention has its own rules and litigation history, and timing can vary by country of removal and travel-document issuance.
Immigration appeal deadlines are short. A BIA appeal is generally due within 30 days of the Immigration Judge’s written decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.38(b). Missing the deadline can be fatal.
6. Broader investigation and impact
This South Carolina case had ripple effects beyond the state. As described: “Information from the South Carolina case assisted federal prosecutors in Nebraska, leading to the indictment of 54 individuals in similar schemes.”
That pattern is common in cyber-enabled fraud rings. One arrest can produce device images, chat logs, cryptocurrency trails, and travel histories. Those leads can support parallel prosecutions and cooperator-driven indictments with many defendants.
- Parallel prosecutions in other districts.
- Cooperator-driven indictments with many defendants.
- Immigration scrutiny for associates and witnesses, including visa holders.
For immigrants, “bigger initiative” cases can increase the likelihood of detention and can narrow prosecutorial flexibility. It can also affect discretion decisions later, including whether ICE attorneys oppose bond or seek expedited scheduling.
For investors and cross-border professionals, the collateral impact can extend beyond the United States. A U.S. federal fraud or computer-crime conviction may trigger visa refusals and “suitability” concerns in other countries, including the UK. It may also derail U.S. E-2 or EB-5 plans due to admissibility issues and credibility concerns, even if the investor funds are lawful.
7. Authorities and investigation partners
The case was investigated by the U.S. Secret Service and the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, and that agency mix is significant. As stated: “The case was investigated by the U.S. Secret Service and the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division.”
The Secret Service has a long-standing role in financial-system and access-device investigations, including ATM compromise. State partners can add localized evidence collection, victim coordination, and rapid response to physical ATM attacks.
From a defense-strategy standpoint, agency involvement often signals the evidence types defendants may face, including device forensics and malware analysis, multi-bank loss summaries, coordinated witness interviews, and travel, toll, and location data.
Immigration defense strategy after conviction: what may still be possible
In many jackpotting cases, the central immigration fight becomes whether DHS can prove an aggravated felony and, if so, whether any protection-based relief remains.
1) Removability and aggravated felony analysis
DHS may charge deportability under aggravated felony grounds, especially INA § 101(a)(43)(M)(i) (fraud or deceit with loss over $10,000). Loss can be litigated, but restitution and sentencing records often make the government’s case easier. See Matter of Babaisakov, 24 I&N Dec. 306 (BIA 2007).
2) Relief options often narrow sharply
- Cancellation of removal is barred by an aggravated felony. See INA § 240A(a)(3) and INA § 240A(b)(1)(C).
- Asylum can be barred by certain convictions, including particularly serious crimes and aggravated felonies, depending on the case posture. See INA § 208(b)(2).
- Withholding of removal can be barred if the conviction is deemed a “particularly serious crime.” See INA § 241(b)(3)(B).
- CAT protection (Convention Against Torture) may remain available even when other relief is barred, depending on proof of likely torture with government involvement or acquiescence. CAT is implemented at 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16–1208.18.
3) Evidence typically needed for CAT or withholding-type claims
- credible declaration and testimony,
- country conditions reports and expert affidavits,
- evidence of individualized risk (past harm, threats, targeting), and
- documentation connecting risk to state actors or acquiescence (for CAT).
4) Factors that strengthen or weaken cases
Stronger cases often include well-documented individualized targeting and consistent testimony. Weaker cases often involve generalized crime conditions without individualized risk, or credibility problems created by inconsistent criminal-record narratives.
Many criminal grounds can trigger mandatory detention during removal proceedings. Bond may be unavailable, and litigation options depend on the charging statute and circuit law.
When restitution amounts are well above $10,000, aggravated felony allegations are common. That often shifts the goal to minimizing detention time, preserving any protection claims, and avoiding additional immigration penalties through careful post-conviction planning. Outcomes vary sharply by circuit law, the conviction record, and the person’s risk evidence.
These cases sit at the intersection of federal criminal practice, sentencing records, and immigration statutes. A qualified immigration attorney can analyze the record of conviction, evaluate aggravated felony exposure, coordinate with criminal counsel on post-conviction options, and build the strongest possible protection claim where available. In complex matters, a team approach is often necessary.
Resources (official government sites)
EOIR Immigration Court information: EOIR Immigration Court information
USCIS policy and benefits information: USCIS policy and benefits information
This article provides general information about immigration law and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified immigration attorney for advice about your specific situation.
Resources:
