Cite as 28 I&N Dec. 460 (BIA 2022) Interim Decision #4037 Matter of F-R-A-, Respondent Decided February 3, 2022 U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals The amount of forfeiture ordered in a criminal proceeding may be considered in determining whether a crime of fraud or deceit resulted in a loss to a victim or victims exceeding $10,000 pursuant to section 101(a)(43)(M)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i) (2018), if the amount set forth in the order is sufficiently tethered and traceable to the conduct of conviction. FOR RESPONDENT: Enedina G. Kassamanian, Esquire, Henderson, Nevada FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Rachel Silber, Associate Legal Advisor BEFORE: Board Panel: O’CONNOR and GOODWIN, Appellate Immigration Judges; LIEBMANN, Temporary Appellate Immigration Judge. O’CONNOR, Appellate Immigration Judge: In a decision dated June 12, 2020, an Immigration Judge denied the respondent’s motion to terminate his removal proceedings. The Immigration Judge also denied the respondent’s application for asylum and withholding of removal under sections 208(b)(1)(A) and 241(b)(3)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(A) and 1231(b)(3)(A) (2018), and for protection under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted and opened for signature Dec. 10, 1984, G.A. Res. 39/46, 39 U.N. GAOR Supp. No. 51, at 197, U.N. Doc. A/RES/39/708 (1984) (entered into force June 26, 1987; for the United States Apr. 18, 1988) (“Convention Against Torture”). The respondent has appealed from this decision and has filed a motion to remand. Upon our request, both parties submitted supplemental briefing on the respondent’s removability. The appeal will be dismissed and the motion to remand will be denied. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The respondent is a native and citizen of Ghana who entered the United States in 1992 and adjusted to lawful permanent resident status in 2013. At some point, the respondent became involved in a multi-million dollar 460 Cite as 28 I&N Dec. 460 (BIA 2022) Interim Decision #4037 conspiracy to defraud cell phone users. According to the superseding criminal indictment in the record, the respondent owned a company that provided specialized digital content for a fee to cell phone users via text message. The respondent was approached by owners of a mobile aggregator company, who devised a plan to unknowingly and automatically subscribe cell phone users to receive content from the respondent’s company, which, in turn, charged these users a monthly premium fee through their mobile carrier. The cell phone users never consented or agreed to the auto-subscription or resulting fee. The individuals at the mobile aggregator, and the respondent, then obtained that fraudulent fee from the mobile carrier, which mistakenly believed that the cell phone users had authorized the purchase of this respondent’s content. Based on this scheme, the respondent pled guilty in 2017 to conspiracy to commit wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 and § 1343 (2012). 1 The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) placed him in removal proceedings, charging …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals