Mahfouz, et al v. Holder, No. 07-72231 (9th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED OCT 15 2010 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KHALED AHMED MAHFOUZ, Petitioner, No. 07-72231 Agency No. A091-534-688 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 October 6, 2010 Pasadena, California Before: PREGERSON, D.W. NELSON and IKUTA, Circuit Judges. The record provides clear and convincing evidence that Mahfouz s crime resulted in loss to the victim or victims exceed[ing] $10,000, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i); see Nijhawan v. Holder, 129 S. Ct. 2294 (2009); Kawashima v. Holder, 615 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2010). Specifically, Mahfouz pleaded guilty to count 2 of the superseding indictment, which listed overt acts totaling over $70,000 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. in loss to the victims, the judgment of conviction ordered Mahfouz to pay over $90,000 in restitution, and Mahfouz is responsible for losses attributable to his coconspirators direct acts as well as his own. See United States v. HernandezOrellana, 539 F.3d 994, 1007 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 647 (1946)). Therefore, the BIA s determination that Mahfouz is removable is supported by substantial evidence. The BIA s denial of Mahfouz s withholding of removal claim was also supported by substantial evidence, given the country reports mixed assessments of conditions for Muslims in India, their silence on conditions for Muslims in SunniShiite marriages, Mahfouz s admitted lack of firsthand information on conditions in India, and the fact that Professor Reid provided only background information on general conditions in India. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1184 85 (9th Cir. 2003). Substantial evidence also supported the Immigration Judge s determination that Mahfouz had failed to demonstrate a clear probability that his life or freedom would be threatened if he were removed to India. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(2); Hoxha, 319 F.3d at 1184 85. PETITION DENIED. -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
