Rizwan Irshad v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RIZWAN IRSHAD,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-71220
Agency No. A042-985-986
MEMORANDUM*
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
FILED
NOV 06 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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.

-- 1 of 2 --

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

-- 2 of 2 --