11-2805-ag

Masoud v. Holder

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A

SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY

FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN

CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE

EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION

“SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY

PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 

At a stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the

Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York,

on the 10th day of July, two thousand twelve.

Present: ROSEMARY S. POOLER,

REENA RAGGI,

GERARD E. LYNCH,

Circuit Judges.

_____________________________________________________

FAWZIYEH RAKI MASOUD, AKA FAWZIYEH RAKI,

AKA FAWZIYEH HADABA, AKA FAWZI, AKA 

“THE HAJA,”

Petitioner,

 -v.- 11-2805-ag

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY GENERAL,

 Respondent.

 

Appearing for Appellant: Jonathan R. Nelson, New York, N.Y.

 

Appearing for Appellee: Colin J. Tucker, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation,

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice (Tony West,

Assistant Attorney General, Terri J. Scadron, Assistant Director,

on the brief), Washington, D.C. 
2

Petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”).

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,

AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED.

Petitioner Fawziyeh Raki Masoud seeks review of a June 13, 2011 order of the BIA

affirming the June 26, 2009 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Gabriel C. Videla ordering her

removal from the United States. In re Fawziyeh Raki Masoud, No. A040 172 475 (B.I.A. June

13, 2011), aff’g No. A040 172 475 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City June 26, 2009). We assume the

parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case.

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), “an offense that . . . involves fraud

or deceit in which the loss to the victim . . . exceeds $10,000” is an aggravated felony. See INA

§ 101(a)(43)(M)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i). When a noncitizen is convicted of an offense

involving fraud and charged with removability under this subsection, the court must engage in a

“circumstance-specific” analysis to determine whether the loss amount attributable to the offense

exceeds $10,000, Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29, 38-40 (2009), which requires the

government to establish “by clear and convincing evidence that the circumstances surrounding

the specific counts of conviction involve the requisite amount of loss under the INA,” Pierre v.

Holder, 588 F.3d 767, 773 (2d Cir. 2009). In particular, “the loss [found by the agency] must be

tied to the specific counts covered by the conviction.” Nijhawan, 557 U.S. at 42 (emphasis

added) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

The principal issue in this case is whether the agency erred in determining that Masoud’s

conviction for wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 constituted an aggravated felony under

INA § 101(a)(43)(M)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i). It is undisputed that the offense involved

fraud; at issue is whether the agency erred in concluding that the charging document and

judgment of conviction demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the loss to the

victim(s) exceeded $10,000. Although we generally lack jurisdiction to review a final order of

removal based on a conviction of an aggravated felony, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), we retain

jurisdiction to decide questions of law and constitutional claims, id. § 1252(a)(2)(D), including

whether the agency properly determined that Masoud’s conviction was an aggravated felony, see

Pierre v. Gonzales, 502 F.3d 109, 113 (2d Cir. 2007). We review Masoud’s claims de novo. See

Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).

Masoud first argues that her criminal information is insufficient evidence of loss amount

because the particular count to which Masoud pleaded guilty did not specify a loss amount. She

conceded before the agency both that the prefatory allegations in the information alleged that the

overall scheme caused a loss of approximately $359,739.95, and that the scheme did in fact

“involve[] a loss of over $300,000.” She argues, however, that, under Nijhawan, the loss amount

included in the prefatory allegations was not sufficiently “tied” to Masoud’s conviction because

the prefatory allegations “did not link [the $359,739.95 loss] in any way to [Masoud]’s conduct.” 
1

Because Masoud was convicted in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, we look to Seventh Circuit authority

to determine the scope of her liability for her wire fraud conviction. Cf. Ragbir v. Holder, 389 F. App’x 80, 83 n.4

(2d Cir. 2010) (summary order) (“Because Ragbir was convicted of fraud in the District of New Jersey, we cite

Third Circuit authority in determining the potential scope of the restitution order at issue.”). 

3

Masoud ’s argument relies on a misunderstanding of the scope of her liability. The

elements of wire fraud are (1) knowing participation in a scheme to defraud, (2) specific intent to

defraud, and (3) use of the wires in furtherance of the scheme. E.g., United States v. Davuluri,

239 F.3d 902, 906 (7th Cir. 2001).1 That is, “the crime comprehended by the mail and wire

fraud statutes is the scheme to defraud, not just the isolated iterations of wire transmissions or

mailings.” United States v. Locke, 643 F.3d 235, 247 (7th Cir. 2011) (emphasis added). As a

matter of law, then, Masoud pleaded guilty not only to the discrete use of the wire described in

the count to which she pleaded guilty, but also to (1) using the wire “in furtherance of” a scheme

to defraud that caused $359,739.95 in losses, (2) being a knowing participant in that scheme,

and (3) having a specific intent to defraud. See Davaluri, 239 F.3d at 906. As such, the loss

caused by the scheme was directly attributable to Masoud. See United States v. Wormick, 709

F.2d 454, 461 (7th Cir. 1983) (holding that conspiracy doctrines apply to multi-member mail

fraud schemes); United States v. Read, 658 F.2d 1225, 1230 (7th Cir. 1981) (“Each conspirator is

liable for overt acts of every other conspirator done in furtherance of the conspiracy, whether the

acts occurred before or after he joined the conspiracy.”). Therefore, contrary to Masoud’s

contention, the loss amount alleged in the criminal information was sufficiently “tied” to her

convicted conduct to support the agency’s finding that she was convicted of an aggravated

felony. See Doe v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 659 F.3d 266, 276 (3d Cir. 2011) (concluding that losses

stated in complaint were sufficiently “tied” to convicted conduct where petitioner “pled guilty

not to a single fraudulent transaction but to aiding and abetting the whole of a large-scale

criminal endeavor”). 

Masoud further argues that the district court’s decision not to order her to pay restitution

proves that Masoud’s offense caused no loss. Masoud misreads the Mandatory Victims

Restitution Act of 1996 (“MVRA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3663A. Contrary to Masoud’s contention that

the MVRA required the district court to impose restitution exactly equal to Masoud’s individual

liability, the MVRA neither requires imposition of restitution in every case, see 18 U.S.C. §

3663A(c)(3)(A)-(B), nor deprives a district court of “discretion in apportioning liability where

multiple defendants are involved,” see United States v. Walton, 217 F.3d 443, 451 (7th Cir.

2000); 18 U.S.C. § 3664(h) (“If the court finds that more than 1 defendant has contributed to the

loss of a victim, the court may make each defendant liable for payment of the full amount of

restitution or may apportion liability among the defendants to reflect the level of contribution to

the victim’s loss and economic circumstances of each defendant.”). Thus, far from compelling

the conclusion that Masoud’s conviction involved no loss, the district court’s decision not to

order Masoud to pay restitution is indeterminate. For this reason, the fact that the district court

did not order restitution did not preclude the agency from relying on the loss amount alleged in

the criminal information to conclude that the government had proved by clear and convincing

evidence that Masoud’s conviction was for an offense “involv[ing] fraud or deceit in which the

loss to the victim . . . exceed[ed] $10,000.” INA § 101(a)(43)(M)(i), 8 U.S.C.

§ 1101(a)(43)(M)(i). 
4

Masoud also raises two due process claims: (1) that the IJ deprived Masoud of due

process by failing to order an adjournment sua sponte after the Supreme Court issued the

Nijhawan decision, and (2) that the agency deprived Masoud of due process by failing to

consider the fact that the criminal court did not order restitution or impose a prison sentence. We

are precluded from considering the first claim because Masoud failed to raise this issue before

the agency and the government raises issue exhaustion as an affirmative defense. See Lin Zhong

v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 107 n.1 (2d Cir. 2007); Theodoropoulos v. INS, 358 F.3d

162, 172-74 (2d Cir. 2004). As to the second claim, we may consider it because it is

“subsidiary” to Masoud’s exhausted claim that the agency lacked sufficient evidence of the loss

amount. See Gill v. INS, 420 F.3d 82, 85-86 (2d Cir. 2005). This claim nonetheless fails

because nothing in the record suggests that the agency did not consider all of the evidence. See

Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 338 n.17 (2d Cir. 2006) (noting that this

Court will “presume” that the agency “has taken into account all of the evidence before [it],

unless the record compellingly suggests otherwise”); Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138,

169 (2d Cir. 2008) (noting that the agency has no obligation to “expressly parse or refute on the

record each . . . piece of evidence”). 

We note that Masoud has filed a separate petition for review of a denial of a motion to

reopen, No. 12-668, and that she has moved for appointment of counsel in that case. That

motion will be decided by a panel in due course and we do not address it in this Order.

We have reviewed the remainder of Masoud’s arguments and found them to be without

merit. We therefore DENY the petition for review. The previously granted stay of removal is

VACATED.

FOR THE COURT:

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk