* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

REVISED APRIL 19, 2013

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-60720

LUIS CARLOS RODRIGUEZ-VARGAS,

Petitioner

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.,

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A037 726 177

Before DeMOSS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Luis Carlos Rodriguez-Vargas, a Mexican national, petitions for review of

the final order of removal issued against him by the Board of Immigration

Appeals (BIA). He argues he never received a “conviction,” as that term is

defined by the Immigration and Nationality Act(INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(48)(A),

for the California crime of sexual battery, CAL.PENAL CODE § 243.4, to which he

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

March 13, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk
No. 11-60720

2

pled nolo contendere. Being convicted by course of law for that offense supplies

the grounds for his removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), (a)(2)(E).

The INA ordinarily denies us jurisdiction to review final orders of removal

against certain “criminal aliens,” including those founded on an aggravated

felony conviction, as Rodriguez-Vargas’s is here. See Martinez v. Mukasey, 519

F.3d 532, 538 (5th Cir. 2008); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C). However, because

Rodriguez-Vargas’s petition presents a question of law as to whether he was

convicted by a California court, we retain jurisdiction to address his claim. See

Martinez, 519 F.3d at 538; 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). We review the BIA’s legal

determinations de novo, but grant it deference in construing statutes it

administers. See Robertson-Dewar v. Holder, 646 F.3d 226, 230 (5th Cir. 2011).

In a December 30, 2005 information, the Alameda County District

Attorney’s Office charged Rodriguez-Vargas with continuous sexual abuse, a

violation of CAL. PENAL CODE § 288.5(a). In a November 9, 2006 court

appearance, Rodriguez-Vargas pled nolo contendere to committing § 243.4 sexual

battery, a lesser included felony, and promised to obey all laws prior to his

sentencing, scheduled for three years later. In return, he was permitted to

remain out of custody, free of conditions, to withdraw his plea, and to have the

charge dismissed at sentencing. Rodriguez-Vargas agreed, however, that if he

committed another crime before sentencing, his plea would continue to bind him,

exposing him to probation or jail time. He also acknowledged that he would be

required to pay restitution under the terms of his plea bargain. The court

accepted the nolo contendere plea as a finding of guilt with a factual basis.

Rodriguez-Vargas reached his November 2009 sentencing without violating the

terms of the plea agreement. The sentencing judge ordered him to pay

restitution in the amount of $4,325.29 to satisfy a claim submitted by the

California Victim Compensation Board, and then dismissed the charge. The
No. 11-60720

3

judge clarified that the restitution order would be “enforceable as a civil

judgment . . . to be paid within 60 days.” 

The issue before us is whether Rodriguez-Vargas’s California proceedings

yielded a conviction, as defined by the INA, giving rise to collateral, immigration

consequences. The INA provides:

The term “conviction” means, with respect to an alien, a formal

judgment of guilt of the alien entered by a court or, if adjudication

of guilt has been withheld, where—

(i) a judge or jury has found the alien guilty or the alien has entered

a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or has admitted sufficient facts

to warrant a finding of guilt, and

(ii) the judge has ordered some form of punishment, penalty, or

restraint on the alien’s liberty to be imposed.

8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(48)(A). California court records do not suggest that, after the

November 2009 sentencing and dismissal, Rodriguez-Vargas retained “a formal

judgment of guilt . . . entered by a court,” dispositive evidence of a conviction

under § 1101(a)(48)(A)’s first clause. The parties agree his case hinges instead

on the two-pronged test in the provision’s second clause that applies when an

“adjudication of guilt has been withheld.” It is plain that the 2006 change of plea

satisfied the first prong, as Rodriguez-Vargas “entered a plea of guilty or nolo

contendere or . . . admitted sufficient facts to warrant a finding of guilt,” §

1101(a)(48)(A)(i). Rodriguez-Vargas primarily takes issue with the BIA’s

determination that the restitution ordered at sentencing fulfills the second

prong, which requires that a “judge has ordered some form of punishment,

penalty, or restraint on the alien’s liberty to be imposed,” § 1101(a)(48)(A)(ii),

in connection with the offense. 

Our settled law confirms that restitution “is a criminal penalty and a

component of the defendant’s sentence.” United States v. Hayes, 32 F.3d 171,

172 (5th Cir. 1994). It accordingly qualifies as a “punishment” or “penalty”
No. 11-60720

4

under § 1101(a)(48)(A)(ii). See De Vega v. Gonzales, 503 F.3d 45, 47, 49 (1st Cir.

2007) (finding that restitution ordered by a Massachusetts court constituted a

punishment or penalty under § 1101(a)(48)(A)(ii), when the defendant admitted

to the facts of the crime charged but was given a continuation without a finding

of guilt contingent on payment of the restitution); Warmington v. Keisler, 254 F.

App’x 287, 290 (5th Cir. 2007) (unpublished) (applying De Vega in finding a

similar Massachusetts procedure qualified as a “conviction”); Matter of Cabrera,

24 I. & N. Dec. 459, 462 (BIA 2008) (holding that imposition of costs and

surcharges following a plea is a “penalty” or “punishment”); cf. Retuta v. Holder,

591 F.3d 1181, 1187-89 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding no “punishment” or “penalty”

where a California court had indefinitely stayed a defendant’s fine without

exacting it). 

Rodriguez-Vargas challenges that result by asserting he was never truly

sentenced, perceiving an incongruity between the sentencing court’s restitution

order and its subsequent dismissal of the charge admitted to under oath by

Rodriguez-Vargas. However, we have already found that an analogous

procedure, deferred adjudication under Texas law, qualifies as a conviction for

purposes of § 1101(a)(48)(A). Moosa, 171 F.3d at 1005-06; Madriz-Alvarado v.

Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 321, 330 (5th Cir. 2004). Under that scheme, a defendant is

permitted to enter a plea of guilty that he may withdraw, avoiding the

accompanying sentence, if he successfully completes a term of community

supervision. Moosa, 171 F.3d at 998 & n.1; TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 42.12 §

5. Like the agreement in Rodriguez-Vargas’s case, Texas deferred adjudication

requires the defendant to admit guilt, enter a plea, and suffer a sanction, after

which the defendant may withdraw the plea and see the charge dismissed. We

found it gave rise to a conviction, even where dismissal of the charges under

state law could “‘not be deemed a conviction for the purposes of disqualifications

or disabilities imposed by law for conviction of an offense.’” Madriz, 383 F.3d
No. 11-60720

1 Nonetheless, it is worth mention that California, consistent with the language used

by the sentencing court, appears to view victim restitution orders as criminal, not civil,

punishment. See Vigilant Ins. Co. v. Chiu, 96 Cal. Rptr. 3d 54, 58 (Ct. App. 2009) (“While a

restitution order is enforceable ‘as if [it] were a civil judgment’. . . it is not a civil judgment.”);

People v. Brown, 54 Cal. Rptr. 3d 887, 893-94 (Ct. App. 2007) (holding victim restitution is a

“punishment” for purposes of a state statute restricting courts to imposing a sentence that is

not more severe than agreed in a plea bargain). But see People v. Harvest, 101 Cal. Rptr. 2d

135, 136-37 (Ct. App. 2000) (determining that direct victim restitution “imposed for the first

time at a resentencing following appeal is not punishment and is therefore not constitutionally

barred” by the Double Jeopardy Clause).

5

at 330 (quoting TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 42.12 § 5(c)). That result followed

because we must apply the standard set forth in § 1101(a)(48)(A), not the law of

the relevant state, in assessing whether a “conviction” arose. See Moosa, 171

F.3d at 1006 n.7. It is therefore not dispositive that, as Rodriguez-Vargas also

highlights, the sentencing judge in his case characterized the restitution order

as “enforceable as a civil judgment.”1 Under our precedent, restitution is a

criminal sanction. Hayes, 32 F.3d at 172. 

Rodriguez-Vargas, in the course of the California criminal proceeding,

sustained a “conviction” by entering a nolo contendere plea and suffering a

punishment or penalty for his conduct in the form of the restitution order. As

a result, we DENY his petition for review.