Blanca Josefina Rinquillo de Corrales, A074 662 392 (BIA Jan. 22, 2014)

8/13/2019 Blanca Josefina Rinquillo de Corrales, A074 662 392 (BIA Jan. 22, 2014)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/blanca-josefina-rinquillo-de-corrales-a074-662-392-bia-jan-22-2014 1/7

Mondragon, Orlando, Esqaw Oice of Orlando Mondragon1028 . Rio Grande venueE Paso, TX 79902

Executive Oce r Imigration Review

Board ofImmigration AppealsOce of the Clerk

/ ; lm: n

HS/IC Oice of Chief Counsel - EP1545 awkins BlvdEl Paso, TX 79925

Name RINQUILLO E CORRLES, B A 07 4-662-392

ate of this notice 1/22/014

nclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and orde in the aboe-rerenced case.

ncosure

b

Sincerey,

D CWDona Ca

Cie erk

k

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished

Cite as: Blanca Josefina Rinquillo de Corrales, A074 662 392 (BIA Jan. 22, 2014)



xi O r igraon iew

Board ofImmigration AppealOce of the Clerk

5107 Lbug Pi Su 200F Cu, Vg 20530

RINQUILLO DE CORRALES, BLANCAJOSEFINA

HS/CE Oice of Chief Counsel - ELP1545 Hawkns Blvd.

A074662392EL PASO SPC8915 MONTANA AVEE PASO TX 79925

El Paso, TX 79925

Name: RNQUILLO DE CORRALES BL... A 074-662-392

Date of this notic 1 222014

nosd is a op o e Boards ison·in e aborrnd as Tis op is bing

proidd o o as a os Yo ao o rpesnaiv as ben sered wi isdision prsan o 8 CFR § 1292(a) e aad dision orders a o berod o Unid aes or as an igraion Jdgs eision ordring a ob roed an peiion r riew o e aad dision s b ed wi and reeiedb apppra o o appas win 30 das o e da o e dision

nosre

b

P R

nrl,

D ctonna CarChie Cr

shwarzA

: Docket




U.S Dm Ju Deiso f the Bad ofmmiaion Appeal. Executive Oe Immigraion Revew

Fas Vgina 253

Fie: 074 66 39El Paso, TX Dae

In e BLANCA OFNA R NU LO DE CORES

IN REMOV POCDING

PPE

ON EHLF OF PONDEN Oo Mondagon, Esquie

ON BEALF OF DHS

CRGE:

Judith F. Bonillassisan Chie Counse

JAN 2 !014

Noice Sec. 37(a)()(A)(iii), I&N c [8 SC § 7(a)2)(A)(iii)] Convice of aggavaed elony

PPICTION: Teminaion

The esponden apeas om an Imigaion Judges Ocobe 9 03, ecision oeinghe emoved om he nied aes. The Deaen o Homeand ecuiy D) opposeshe appea The appea il be dismissed

The esponden is a naive and ciizen o Meico and a lal pemanen esiden o heUnied Saes Ocobe 0 she susained a Fedeal convicion in eas hee couns ovioang C. § 1030a)(), which ovides in eevan pa ha w]hoeve .. koinglyand ih inen o deaud, accesses a poeced compue ihou ahorzaion o eceedsahorize access, an by means o such conuc urhes he inene aud and obinshing o vale" is guiy o a lony s a esu o is convicion, he esonen assenenced o tee monh es o impisonen (o be sered concuenly) and as odeedo ay $37763.67 in esiuion o e vicim

Based on he egoing cs, he Immiaion Judge und he esonden emovabe om

he Unied aes as alien convice o an aggavaed lony," namey, an oense ha ..involves aud o ecei in hich he loss o he cim o vicims eceeds $0000." Seesecions 0a)3)M)i) 37a)))(iii) o he migaion an aionaiy c, .S.C§ 0(a)(43)(M)i), 7a)()()iii) is apeal loe

The esponden oes no ispue ha he oense ened by U.C § 030(a)(4) involvesau o decei," and hus he only issue on aeal s whehe e DHS esabished by ce dconvincing evidence a he esondens oenses o convicion casd moe than $0,000 inloss o he vicim he amoun o vicim oss sing om he esonens oenses oconvicion is a c hch an Imigaion Judge is eied o nd b mes o acicumsancesecic" inquiy. See N hawan v. Hoder 7 S 9 009). ccoding o he




A074 662 32

respondent, the Imiation Judge erre by relyin upon e sentencing cour's restitution orderas a easure of vci oss because he Federal ·resttution taute, USC § 3664e, requires ta evidence of such los be proven by a ere preponderane of the evdenea lower stadof proof the clear nd onvncng evidence reqired in reova proceedings

Although e agree that the ount of restitution ay no always be a reliale easue ofvicti oss r puroses of etion 10a)3)M, on the cts presented here we disce noerror the Iiaton Judges relace upon it he respondent dd not dspute the $7,763.67oss calcuaton rng her sentenin poceedings, nor h se argued at he losses n uestonwere aiutable to acts other tha her oenses of conviction Thus, te ct ta the sentencingcou coud have nd hat aount of loss by a preponderance of e evidence is notdeterinave

We do no aree ith the responent hat restittion orders and presentencerepors can never sue [to estalish the requisite loss] if a preponderance of theevdence std as eploye in enterng he orer or developng e repoFacts und by a prepondernce ay so eet ore stringent evidentiary testsFor exape, a dents falure to contest, durng e crinal proceedngs, at und by a preponerne would bea on wheter a was reiale rreova puoes as well, especially in the absene of y howng in reovaproceedings that there was eor in the �riinal proeedings respecng tha

Matter of Babaisav, 24 & Dec 306, 31-20 (BIA 2007); see also James v. Musey464 F 3d 0, 10-12 th Cir 2006 (relying upon restiution as proof of vi loss underection 101a43)M(i) he ct that he aount o viti os und by the sentencng couexceeded ection 01a3Ms $10,000 ehold by ore han $2,000 w alo a relev

onsideration r he Iigration udgeatter fBabaisa supra

at 320 n 1n vew of he regoing, we oncue that the mgration udge properly d the

respondent reovae o he United States a an alien convicted of an aggravated ony Therespondent ha not requeed, or esablishe eligibily r, ny rm of relief o reovAcordingy, he llowng order shal be issued

O he appeal is disissed an the Iigration udge's reova orer is afred

2




•,UNTED STATES DEPRMENT OF JUSTCE

EXECUTVE OFFCE FOR MMGRATON REVEWMMGRATON COURT

8915 MONTANA AVENUE, SUTE 100E PASO T 79925

N THE MATTER OF

RONQUILLO de Corrales Bc JosefRspo

REMOV PROCEEDNGS

FLE O 07 662 392

DATE O 29 2013

Cre: N§ 237(a(2((ii: Araate Feoy (Fra

Appcaton: ermiatio of Remoal Proceed

O haf of h RsodOrlado Morago EsqLaw Ofce of Orando Morago08 Rio GraeEl Pao X 9902

On haf of ormsstant Cie ConselDeparment of omeand Securit155 Hakins Boulerd Room 25E Paso exa 79925

WRTTEN DECSO AND ORDER OF TE MMGRATON COURT

Procdua Hiso

e respodet i ry-tree yer ol mae o i a ntie d citize oexico. Se djuted er tts to tt of a lawful permnet reiet (LPR" o or abotugt 3 996. On uly 31 203 te respondet was pace i remoal proceedi iate issce of a Notice to ppear (Ex 1 N" by te Departmet of omeland Securi(DHS" cargng er wit remoabi based on a feeral crmin coiction fr

cceg Protecte Computer i Frterce of rad in ioltio of 8 USC §§030(a( ad 1030(c(3(A r wic se a ordered to pa restittio n te amotof $3776367

At mater cen eg te eset apee repreee b cnseackoledge eg ae o of er igt cocee sece o te and enterete lowig pledigs to te llegatons cotaed i

Al gtions

1



• '

(1) The repondent atted he ot a itzen or natona o the Unite State;() The repondent adtted he i a native an itizen of Mexo(3) The reponent aditted he adted er stat to that of a awfu peraet

reset (IR6) on or about Augt 3 196, uner Setion 45 o te At;(4) The responet aditte se wa onvite on Otober 4, 0 in the Unite

State Distrt Cort Wetern Dtrt of Texas, r te offee o Aesng aProtete Copter in Frtherane o Fra in voation o Tite 18, Unite StateCode, Setion 1030(a)( 4) and Tite 18 Unite States Coe, Setion 1030)(3)(A),r whi a entene of eeven (11) onth was impoed and r she was orere topay $37,76367 n restittion

Charg

The repondent was harged with reovabi purant to the owig setion othe iratio and atoaty At a aeded (At)

Setion 37(a)()(A)(i) a an aien who at any te aer admiion ha beenonvite of an aggravate oy a define in Seton 101(a)43)(M) of the At, aa reatng to a oene that ivove frad or eeit in whh te oss to te vtimor vt exeed $10,000

The respondent degnated Mexo as the outry r reova if it beameneeary enied removabiity, oved to ternate remova proeeigs, and sought oreef o reova oter tha terination Te repondent aserte that te DHS ounot prove that the onvtion rested a os to the vitim exeeng $10,000 Howeverbased on the eviene o reor the Cort taied the harge o reovaii an

orered the respondent reove to Mexio he repondet reeved appea of thatdeion an the ase was adourned r issae o a wrtte deson

II. Eidc Cosidrd

Te Cort has onsered the tetiony of the repodent and the owngexhibit n the reor

Exhbit 1 i the TA

Exhbit i the responent' Motion to erinate Remova Proeedg

Exbit 3 the DHS ppotio to the Responent's Moto o Ternate and covcorcos rag o h respondets dera riina onvition r Aesing a ProtetedCoputer in Frterane of Frad in vioatio of 1 USC § 1030a)(4) a1030()(3)(A)

II Ran aa n o o



f.

spt s a t a l ma is a ativ a ci fMxic. S aust status t ta a laful pmat st (P" abutAuust 23, 996 O Octb 24 2 t spt as cvict i t Uit Statsstct ut Wst stct f Txas t s Accss a Ptct mput Futac f Fau viat o tl 8 Uid Stats C Sct 13(a( 4 ail 8 Ut Stats C Scti 13(c(3(A As a sut f tis cvct spt as scd t lv 1 mts impsmt a as pa$3 63.6 stut (Ebt 3 abs A, B)

IV Legal Anysis nd Fidig of aw

Rmovbili Undr NA§ 237(a(2(A(iii: Convictio r ggraatd Flo

ad o t amo o t pot troug coul ad te vdc o ecord(x 3 te ourt d tat o Octobr 2 202 t rpoet a covcted te id

Stat Ditrct ourt t Ditrct o xa te oe o Acceg a Protecteomputer Fuerace o Fa olato o tle 8 td State od Scto030a)( a itl 8 td Stat o Scto 030(c)(3)(A a ult o tcocto t rpodt a tced o elee ( ot mproet ad a orred topay 3776367 rettto xb 3 ab

Puuat o ae o aaako 2 I&N Dc 306 39 (A 2007 te rettutoorr tl reabe evdce o te aot o lo e Ccut a ao ad tcocuo Marez Mkae 508 3d 255 5960 (5 Cr 2008 a Jame Gozae6 F3d (5 r 2006 Ho t ca o t ttutio ode (xbt 3 ab p. 0 t tacpt of te etec ar (xbt 3 ab pp 6 23) la o doubt

ot oy tat t podt a or to pay ettuto i t amout o $3776367 but tat crimal coduct coctio n ac elt a lo o t ctm() ti am amouto $3776367 u te our wil deny te pot moto to ermate a u tcage o removabty

A tre ar o ote applcato r ree llig s sal b td:

T IS ORDERED THT t spdts mt f tmiat f mvapcdigs b DEND

T S FTHE OERD HAT t spt b REMOD m

Ut Stats t MXC

�at

3

Sua B atabUS mgat ug

Documents

Blanca Josefina Rinquillo de Corrales, A074 662 392 (BIA Jan. 22, 2014)