Anastasia Zmeeva v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 11-2294 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-2294 ANASTASIA Y. ZMEEVA, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Department of Homeland Security. Submitted: April 30, 2012 Decided: May 15, 2012 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael F. Leban, LEBAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director, David H. Wetmore, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Anastasia Y. Zmeeva, a native and citizen of Russia, petitions for review of a final administrative removal order issued by the Department of Homeland Security, finding she is removable because she was not lawfully admitted for permanent residence and she was convicted of an aggravated felony. Zmeeva claims that her conviction was not an aggravated felony. We dismiss the petition for review. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) (2006), this court lacks jurisdiction to review any final order of removal against an alien who is removable for having committed an aggravated felony. whether However, the court retains jurisdiction to ascertain in fact the petitioner convicted of a relevant offense. 202, 203 (4th Cir. 2002). factual determinations, is an alien and has been Ramtulla v. Ashcroft, 301 F.3d Once the court confirms these two then, under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), (D), it can only consider constitutional claims or questions of law. 2007). of See Mbea v. Gonzales, 482 F.3d 276, 278 n.1 (4th Cir. The court reviews legal issues, including the question whether novo. Id. a particular at 279. offense Under 8 is an U.S.C. aggravated felony, §§ 1101(a)(43)(m), de (u) (2006), an aggravated felony includes a conspiracy to commit fraud in which the loss to the victim exceeds $10,000. 2 Because criminalizes Zmeeva conduct was that convicted does and of not does a statute involve a that fraud offense in which the loss to the victim exceeds $10,000, this court must apply a modified categorical approach. Gonzales, 419 approach, the F.3d 276, court 285 must (4th Cir. determine 2005). whether Soliman v. Under a this defendant s specific conduct qualifies as an aggravated felony by looking to the terms of the charging document and, if necessary in a nonjury case, to the terms of a plea agreement, the transcript of colloquy between judge and defendant, or some comparable judicial record revealing the factual basis for the plea. Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 26 (2005). An order of restitution and a stipulation as to the amount of loss are also proper references. Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29, __, 129 S. Ct. 2294, 2303 (2009). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the evidence supports the finding that Zmeeva s conviction was for an aggravated felony. She acknowledged that one of the objects of the conspiracy was to commit a fraud upon the United States Navy. In addition, she was ordered to pay restitution to the victim in the amount of $36,514.52. Because Zmeeva was convicted of an aggravated felony and she does not raise a constitutional claim or a question of law, we dismiss the petition 3 for review for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DISMISSED 4
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.
