evaluate the “minimum criminal conduct” necessary to sustain a conviction under Conn. Gen.Stat. § 53-21 in order to determine whether the offense of risk of injury to a minor “by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force” may be used against the person of another. 18 U.S.C. § 16(b); Chery v. Ashcroft, No. 3:01CV1883(PCD), slip op. at 3 (D.Conn. May 21, 2002); In re Sweetser, 22 I. & N. Dec. 709 (phrasing the issue as whether the “nature of the crime — as elucidated by the generic elements of the offense- — -is such that its commission would ordinarily present a risk that physical force would be used against the person or property of another irrespective of whether the risk develops or the harm actually occurs”); In re Ramos, 23 I. & N. Dec. 336, 340 (BIA 2002)(en banc)(<HOLDING>). As the BIA stated in In re Sweetser, 22 I. &
holding that it is the conduct required to obtain a conviction rather than the consequences resulting from the crime that is relevant holding that courts should look to the statutory definition of the crime charged rather than the actual facts of the individuals prior conviction to determine whether the crime qualifies as a violent felony under the acca holding that being deported after a conviction for an aggravated felony is all that is required and it is irrelevant whether the conviction is valid at the time of sentencing holding that the impact upon the victims is relevant to circumstances of the crime holding that the relevant question in imposing restitution under the mvra is whether the loss is caused by the specific conduct that is the basis of the offense of conviction