Rosario-Bencosme v. Holder

Second Circuit

Rosario-Bencosme v. Holder

424 F. App'x 34

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJune 7, 2011

Docket10-2990-ag

StatusUnpublished

This text of 424 F. App'x 34 (Rosario-Bencosme v. Holder) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rosario-Bencosme v. Holder, 424 F. App'x 34 (2d Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Euclides Rafael Rosario-Bencosme, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, petitions for review of a June 25, 2010 order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), affirming a decision of an immigration judge finding him removable as an aggravated felon pursuant to subsections M and U of section 101(a)(43) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(M), (U). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

Although we lack jurisdiction to review final agency orders of removal based on an alien’s conviction of an aggravated felony, “we are permitted to review questions of law,” including whether a specific conviction constitutes an aggravated felony. Blake v. Gonzales, 481 F.3d 152, 155-56 (2d Cir.2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). We review de novo questions of law. Id. at 156.

Rosario-Bencosme pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States “by acquiring, possessing, using, and redeeming approximately $5,600,000 worth of [United States Department of Agriculture] food stamp coupons in a manner contrary to [law].” J.A. at 100-01. Rosar *35 io-Bencosme was ordered to pay $5,600,000 in restitution.

Under the INA, “an offense that ... involves fraud or deceit in which the loss to the victim ... exceeds $10,000” constitutes an aggravated felony. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(M)(i). There is “nothing unfair” about the BIA’s determination that the government satisfied its burden of demonstrating the requisite loss by clear and convincing evidence when it presented the criminal information and restitution order, and Rosario-Bencosme did not present any conflicting evidence. Nijhawan v. Holder, - U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 2294, 2303,174 L.Ed.2d 22 (2009).

Finding no merit in Rosario-Bencosme’s remaining arguments, we hereby DISMISS the petition for review.

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

SUMMARY ORDER

Euclides Rafael Rosario-Bencosme, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, petitions for review of a June 25, 2010 order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), affirming a decision of an immigration judge finding him removable as an aggravated felon pursuant to subsections M and U of section 101(a)(43) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(M), (U). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

Although we lack jurisdiction to review final agency orders of removal based on an alien’s conviction of an aggravated felony, “we are permitted to review questions of law,” including whether a specific conviction constitutes an aggravated felony. Blake v. Gonzales, 481 F.3d 152, 155-56 (2d Cir.2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). We review de novo questions of law. Id. at 156.

Rosario-Bencosme pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States “by acquiring, possessing, using, and redeeming approximately $5,600,000 worth of [United States Department of Agriculture] food stamp coupons in a manner contrary to [law].” J.A. at 100-01. Rosar *35 io-Bencosme was ordered to pay $5,600,000 in restitution.

Under the INA, “an offense that ... involves fraud or deceit in which the loss to the victim ... exceeds $10,000” constitutes an aggravated felony. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(M)(i). There is “nothing unfair” about the BIA’s determination that the government satisfied its burden of demonstrating the requisite loss by clear and convincing evidence when it presented the criminal information and restitution order, and Rosario-Bencosme did not present any conflicting evidence. Nijhawan v. Holder, - U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 2294, 2303,174 L.Ed.2d 22 (2009).

Finding no merit in Rosario-Bencosme’s remaining arguments, we hereby DISMISS the petition for review.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

424 F. App'x 34, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosario-bencosme-v-holder-ca2-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack