RIZWAN IRSHAD V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 13-71220 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 06 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RIZWAN IRSHAD, No. 13-71220 Petitioner, Agency No. A042-985-986 v. MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted October 22, 2015 San Francisco, California Before: CLIFTON and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges and LASNIK,** District Judge. Rizwan Irshad challenges the BIA’s determination that he was convicted of an aggravated felony, defined in Section 101(a)(43)(M)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act as “an offense that . . . involves fraud or deceit in which the loss to * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation. the victim or victims exceeds $10,000.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i). Irshad agrees that his offense involved fraud or deceit, but contends that the BIA erred when it concluded that the loss to the victims exceeded $10,000. We review whether a conviction was for an aggravated felony de novo. Rendon v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2008). The monetary threshold established by Section 101(a)(43)(M)(i) “applies to the specific circumstances surrounding an offender’s commission of a fraud and deceit crime on a specific occasion.” Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29, 40 (2009). Here, Irshad pleaded guilty to conspiracy under California Penal Code Section 182(a)(1) and agreed that he and his co-defendants were responsible for $22,500 in restitution. This agreement constitutes clear and convincing evidence that the loss to the victims exceeded $10,000. See Fuentes v. Lynch, 788 F.3d 1177, 1183 (9th Cir. 2015) (per curiam); Ferreira v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 1091, 1098-1100 (9th Cir. 2004), abrogated on other grounds by Nijhawan, 557 U.S. 29. Although the BIA erred by relying on overt acts listed in the conspiracy count to which Irshad did not admit, this error was harmless. See Fuentes, 788 F.3d at 1182-83. PETITION FOR REVIEW 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.
