NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 8 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CYNTHIA SURATOS LORICA, No. 20-71117 Petitioner, Agency No. A095-271-411 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 5, 2021** San Francisco, California Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and CLIFTON and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Cynthia Lorica, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her second motion to reopen. Lorica claims her husband as a derivative beneficiary. We have * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Silva v. Garland, 993 F.3d 705, 717 (9th Cir. 2021). We deny the petition. Lorica first entered the United States in 1992 and obtained lawful permanent resident status in 2007. In 2013, however, Lorica pleaded guilty to bank fraud and tax evasion, for which she was sentenced to 18 months in prison and ordered to pay over one million dollars in restitution. Lorica was served with a Notice to Appear, which claimed she was removable as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony after admission, and an immigration judge (“IJ”) sustained the charge. Lorica then sought an adjustment of status, but the IJ declined to grant her a discretionary waiver, and the BIA dismissed her appeal. Lorica filed a motion to reopen and, later, a motion for reconsideration, both of which the BIA denied. Lorica petitioned for review of all three adverse rulings, and in March 2019, we dismissed in part and denied in part all three petitions. See Lorica v. Barr, 764 F. App’x 581, 582 (9th Cir. 2019). Five months later, Lorica filed a second motion to reopen, alleging that she is eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) based on changed circumstances in the Philippines, namely President Duterte’s “war on drugs” and a recent increase in extra-judicial killings. Lorica contended that, if returned to the Philippines, she would be a target 2 based on her criminal history, her political opinion, and her perceived wealth as someone who spent extended time in the United States. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lorica’s second motion to reopen. First, we agree with the BIA that Lorica’s conviction constituted an aggravated felony, which renders her ineligible for asylum. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i) (an offense involving fraud or deceit in which the loss to the victim exceeds $10,000 is an aggravated felony); id. § 1158(b)(2)(B)(i) (an aggravated felony is considered a “particularly serious crime” for purposes of asylum eligibility); id. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii) (aliens convicted …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals