Marla Fields v. Loretta E. Lynch

Ninth Circuit

Marla Fields v. Loretta E. Lynch

628 F. App'x 512

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 6, 2016

Docket12-74240

StatusUnpublished

This text of 628 F. App'x 512 (Marla Fields v. Loretta E. Lynch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Marla Fields v. Loretta E. Lynch, 628 F. App'x 512 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

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.

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)(3VI)(i); Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29, 42, 129 S.Ct. 2294, 174 *513 L.Ed.2d 22 (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, 186 Cal.App.4th 1503, 113 Cal. Rptr.3d 536, 541 (2010) (quoting People v. Giordano, 42 Cal.4th 644, 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 51, 170 P.3d 623, 632 (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.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

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.

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)(3VI)(i); Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29, 42, 129 S.Ct. 2294, 174 *513 L.Ed.2d 22 (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, 186 Cal.App.4th 1503, 113 Cal. Rptr.3d 536, 541 (2010) (quoting People v. Giordano, 42 Cal.4th 644, 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 51, 170 P.3d 623, 632 (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.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

628 F. App'x 512, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marla-fields-v-loretta-e-lynch-ca9-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack