N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
M OHAM M A D B A SHAR ,

Pe t i tione r,
v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 14-74049 Age n c y No. A200-574-870
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 13, 2019 * * Honolulu, Ha

wa ii B e fore : TALLM AN, B YB E E, a nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. M oha m m a d B a sha

r pe titions for re v ie w of the de te rm ination by the B oa rd of Im m i gration Appe a l s (B IA) that he is re m ova ble unde r 8 U.S.C
. § 1182(a )(2)(A)(i)(I), be c a use he c om

m itte d a c rim e involving m

ora l turpitude (C IM T). W e de ny

the pe tition for re vie w. 

# FIL ED FEB 15 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).1. The B IA prope rly c onc lude d tha

t B a s ha r’ s c onvic tion for m arria ge fra ud, N. M ar. I. C ode § 4366(a ), wa s a c a te goric a l C IM T. Se e Marmole jo-C ampos v . Holde r , 558 F.3d 903, 908–11 (9th C i r. 2009) (e n ba nc ) (e xpla ining thesta

nda rd of
re vie w for e va l uating whe the r a c onvic tion is c ate goric a lly a C IM T). A c onvic tion unde r se c tion 4366(a

) re quire s tha

t a pe rson knowingly e nte r into a m arria ge (1)

“ for the sole purpose of obta ining a [la bor or im m igration] be ne fit” or (2) “ for the purpose of e va ding [a

la w ] .” B oth of the se provisions a re e quiva le nt to a

n “ inte nt to de fraud.” Se e W

i ne stoc k v . IN S , 576 F.2d 234, 235 (9th C i r. 1978) (holding a
c rim e with a

n e l e m e nt of “ inte nt to de fraud” is a C IM T). The te rm

“ p urpose ” is
e quiva le nt to “ inte nt.” Se e P urpose , Am e ric an He rita ge C olle ge Dic t iona ry (3d e d. 1997). W e have a lso he ld tha t, “ to be inhe re n tly

fra udule nt,” and thus a

C IM T, “ a c rim e m ust involve

[a ] knowingly

fa lse re p re se ntation to gain som e thing of va lue .” Tijani v . Holde r , 628 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th C i r. 2010) (c ita tion omitte d). B oth la bor a nd im m igration be ne fits ha

ve ta ngible va l ue . Se e Linare

s-Gonzale

z v . Ly nc h , 823 F.3d 508, 515–16 (9th C ir. 2016) (holding tha t the “ som e thing of
va lue ” m ust be “ ta ngible ” ra the r tha

n “ inta ngible ” va lue ). Furthe r, “ inte nt to
e va de ” is e quiva le nt to “ inte nt to de fraud.” C arty v . Ashc roft , 395 F.3d 1081,

21084–85 (9th C ir. 2005). The re fore , be c a use both provisions of se c tion 4366(a )
are C IM Ts, we a gre e with theB IA that B a sha r is re m o va

ble
. 1 2. The B IA did not e rr in c onc luding tha t B a s ha r wa s c onvic te d of m arria ge fraud, e ve n though heple a de d nolo c onte nde re to the c h arge . An a l ie n is ina d m issibleif he or she ha s a c onvic t ion for “ a c rim e involving m ora l turpitude (othe r tha n a pure ly politic a l offe nse ) or an atte m pt or c onspira c y

to c o m m it suc h a
c rim e .” 8 U.S.C . § 1182(a )(2)(A)(i)(I). A ple a of “ nolo c onte nde re ” is a

“ c o nvic tion” a s long a s the judge e nte re d “ som e form of punishm e nt.” 8 U.S.C
. § 1101(a )(48)(A). He re , B a sha r e nte re d a nolo c onte nde re ple a , a

nd he wa s se nte nc e d to one y e ar of im prisonm e nt. Ac c ordingly , B a sha r wa s c onvic te d

of a C IM T. Se e Re

y e s v . Ly nc h , 834 F.3d 1104, 1107 (9th C ir. 2016). 3. The B IA did not e rr in c onc luding tha t B a s ha r’ s c onvic t ion wa s fina l for im m igration purpose s. W e have long he ld tha t “ [a ] c rim i na l c onvic tion is final for the p urpose s of im

m igration re v ie w if the a lie n ha s e xha uste d or wa i ve d dire c t
a ppe lla te re vie w .” Urbina-Mauric io v . IN S , 989 F.2d 1085, 1089 (9th C ir. 1993).

1 B e c a use both provisions qua

lify a s C IM Ts, it is not re le va nt whe the r B a sha r e n te re d into thefra

udule nt m arria g e to obta in a be n e fit or to e va de la

ws; e ithe r way , his c onvic tion is a C IM T. He nc e , it is a lso not re l e va nt whe the r the sta tute is divisible , be c a

use whe the r the a

bove outline d pa

rts a re e le m e nts or m e ans, a c onvic tion unde r se c tion 4366(a ) is c ate g oric a lly

a C IM T. 3The ava ila

b ility of othe r pote ntia l post-c onvic tion re lie f doe s not a lte r the fina lity of a c o nvic tion. Id. Thus, the re wa s no e rror. 4. The B IA c orre c t ly

c onc lude d tha

t B a sha r wa s prope rly

c ha rge d a s a n ina d m issiblea lie n, 8 U.S.C . § 1182, ra the r tha n a de p orta b le a lie n, 8 U.S.C
. § 1227. B a sha

r did not pre se nt a

ny e vide n c e that he wa s “ a dm itte d” into the Unite d State s. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1101(a )(13)(A) (“ The te rm s ‘ a dm ission’ and

‘ a dm itte d’ m e an, with re s pe c t to a n a lie n , the la

wful e n try

of the a l ie n into the Unite d State s a fte r inspe c tion a

nd a uthoriz ation by

an im m igration offic e r.” ). Ne ithe r B a sha

r’ s m e re pre se nc e in the C o m m onwe a l th of the Northe rn M ariana Isla nds nor a ny pre -2009 le ga l sta

tus unde r the C om

m o nwe a lth’ s pre v ious im m igration la

ws m e an he wa s a dm itte d a nd the re fore not re m ova

b le
. Se e id. ; 48 U.S.C . § 1806(e )(1)(A) (providing tha t e ve n a lie ns la

wfully pre se nt in the12 Northe rn M ariana Isla

nds will be

subje c t to re m ova l by

2011); se e also Minto v
. Se ssions , 854 F.3d 619, 621–24 (9th C ir. 2017), c e r t. de nie d , 138 S. C t. 1261 (2018). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

4