Marla Consuelo Fields v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARLA CONSUELO FIELDS,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-74240
Agency No. A042-926-314
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 4, 2016**
Pasadena, California
Before: M. SMITH, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Marla Consuelo Fields, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for
review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) finding her
removable as an aggravated felon. We deny her petition.
FILED
JAN 06 2016
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 panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

Page 2 of 2
The IJ and the BIA determined that Fields’ conviction for submitting a
fraudulent claim under California Penal Code § 550(a)(1) resulted in loss to the
victim in excess of $10,000. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i); Nijhawan v.
Holder, 557 U.S. 29, 42 (2009). The record provides clear and convincing
evidence supporting that determination. The California court ordered Fields to pay
$85,256.97 in restitution to the victim of her fraud. The order was issued pursuant
to California Penal Code § 1202.4(f), which requires convicted defendants to
“make restitution to the victim or victims in an amount established by court order,
based on the amount of loss claimed by the victim.” That provision is intended “to
‘restore the economic status quo’ by returning to the victim ‘funds in which he or
she has an ownership interest’ following a criminal conviction.” People v. Busser,
113 Cal. Rptr. 3d 536, 541 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (quoting People v. Giordano, 170
P.3d 623, 632 (Cal. 2007)). In addition, the probation officer’s report clearly
linked the $85,256.97 to the loss Fields’ victim suffered as a result of the conduct
charged in Count 1, which is one of the two counts of conviction. Finally, unlike
in Chang v. INS, 307 F.3d 1185 (9th Cir. 2002), on which Fields relies, Fields has
presented no evidence contradicting the BIA’s conclusion. The BIA thus did not
err in determining that Fields is removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --