Zapico-Delgado v. Holder , 407 F. App'x 138 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                              FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                               DEC 22 2010
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    NATALIA MARGARITA ZAPICO-                        No. 06-74321
    DELGADO, etc.
    Agency No. A091-637-431
    Petitioner,
    v.                                             MEMORANDUM *
    ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., ATTORNEY
    GENERAL,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Argued and Submitted November 4, 2010
    San Francisco, California
    Before: THOMAS and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and SETTLE, ** District Judge.
    We deny the petition for review. In 2009 the United States Supreme Court
    decided the case of Nijhawan v. Holder, 
    129 S. Ct. 2294
     (2009), and held that,
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not
    precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The Honorable Benjamin Hale Settle, United States District Judge for
    the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.
    when evaluating offenses under 
    8 U.S.C. § 1101
    (a)(43)(M)(i), courts should         treat
    the references to “victim or victims” and a monetary loss in excess of $10,000 “not
    . . . [as] an element of the fraud or deceit crime,” but as “refer[ences] to the
    particular circumstances in which an offender committed a (more broadly defined)
    fraud or deceit crime on a particular occasion.” 
    Id. at 2297-98
    . In determining
    whether these circumstances were present in a particular case, the Court also
    indicated that the decisionmaker would not be limited to reviewing the record of
    conviction, but could also consider a restitution order. 
    Id. at 2303
    . Here,
    Nijhawan is controlling. The Board of Immigration Appeals did not err in
    affirming the Immigration Judge’s reliance on the order of restitution to find that
    Petitioner’s conviction for unlawful use of means of identification, in violation of
    
    18 U.S.C. § 1028
    (a)(7), constituted an aggravated felony conviction under 
    8 U.S.C. § 1101
    (a)(43)(M)(I). Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to review Petitioner’s
    final order of removal. 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    (a)(2)(C).
    DENIED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-74321

Citation Numbers: 407 F. App'x 138

Judges: Thomas, Ikuta, Settle

Filed Date: 12/22/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024