FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 8 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PRAEPITCHA SMATSORABUDH, No. 19-70238 Petitioner, Agency No. A208-843-988 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted April 14, 2020 San Francisco, California Before: PAEZ and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges, and HARPOOL,** District Judge. Praepitcha Smatsorabudh, a native and citizen of Thailand, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing her appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable M. Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri, sitting by designation. (“CAT”). Smatsorabudh argues that the BIA failed to apply the correct standards in concluding that her conviction for wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 was a particularly serious crime making her ineligible for withholding of removal. She also argues that substantial evidence does not support the BIA’s denial of protection under CAT and that the agency failed to review all of the relevant evidence. We disagree with each claim and accordingly deny the petition for review. The protection of withholding of removal is not granted to aliens who have been convicted of particularly serious crimes. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii). “[A] crime is particularly serious if the nature of the conviction, the underlying facts and circumstances and the sentence imposed justify the presumption that the convicted immigrant is a danger to the community.” Delgado v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1095, 1107 (9th Cir. 2011). While particularly serious crimes often involve physical harm to another person, this is not always the case, and this court has previously upheld a BIA decision which concluded that mail fraud was a particularly serious crime. See Arbid v. Holder, 700 F.3d 379 (9th Cir. 2012). Here, the BIA provided a reasoned explanation of its conclusion that Smatsorabudh’s fraud offense constituted a particularly serious crime. The BIA noted that Smatsorabudh had “devised and engaged in a sophisticated fraudulent 2 scheme for over a year; it required importation of counterfeit goods in at least 32 separate shipments; [she] traveled to 12 different states to avoid detection; the loss to the department store victims was over $403,000.00; [she] was ordered to pay restitution in the same amount of the victims' losses; and she was sentenced to 30 months' imprisonment.” This case-specific analysis, along with the incorporated reasoning of the IJ, provides sufficient information to infer that the BIA concluded that Smatsorabudh was a danger to the community. Thus, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Smatsorabudh was guilty of a particularly serious crime and ineligible for withholding of removal. The BIA also did not err in denying Smatsorabudh’s application for protection ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals