N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
HAYK AR

AKELYAN, AKA Le von Ara k e ly a n, AKA M ike Arake ly an, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 12-70750 Age n c y No. A071-113-206
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 August 14, 2015 ** Sa n Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : TALLM AN a

nd C ALLAHAN, C irc uit Judge s a nd R OSENTHAL, *** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL E D SEP 30 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

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

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

by 9th C ir. R . 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). *** The Honora

ble Le e H. R ose ntha l, Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of Te xa s, sitting by de signa tion.Hayk Arak e ly an, a c itiz e n of Arm e nia , pe titions for re v ie w of a B oa rd of Im m i gra tion Appe a l s (“ B IA” ) a ffirm anc e of a n Im m igration Judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) orde r finding Ara

ke ly an re m o va

ble unde r 8 U.S.C
. § 1227(a )(2)(A)(iii) a s a n a ggravate d fe lon. Ara

ke l y an c la i m s tha

t his c onvic tion for a

tte m p ting to obta

in or posse ss a c re d it c ard without the c ardholde r’ s c onse nt is not a n a ggravate d the ft offe nse , be c a use the sta

tute at issue is not a

c a te goric a l m a tc h to the fe de ra l de finition of a the ft offe nse . Although we la c k jurisdic tion to re vie w re m ova l orde rs a ga inst a n a lie n who is re m ova

ble be c a u se the y have be e n c onvic te d of a n a ggravate d fe lony , 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a )(2)(C ), we re ta in jurisdic tion ove r que stions of la w a nd thus have jurisdic tion to de te rm ine if the c onvic tion is a n a ggravate d fe lony , a

que stion whic h we re vie w de novo. 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a )(2)(D); se e Estrada-Rodrigue z v . Muk ase y , 512 F.3d 517, 519 (9th C ir. 2007). W e de ny the pe tition for re vie w. 1 1. Arake ly an wa s c o nvic te d of viola ting NR S § 205.690(2). This sta tute
c rim ina liz e s “ posse ss[ion] [of] a c re d it c ard or de bit c ard without the c o nse nt of the
c ardholde r and with theinte nt to c irc ulate , use , se ll or tra nsfe r the c re dit c a

rd or de bit c ard with the inte nt to de fraud.”

1 B e c a use the pa rtie s a re fa m ilia r with the fa c ts a

nd proc e dura l history , we re sta te the m he re only a s ne c e ssa

ry to e xpla in our de c ision. 2To de te rm ine whe the r a sta te offe nse is a

n a ggravate d fe lony , we c om pa re the e le m e nts of the sta

t e offe nse with those of the fe de ra l de finition of the offe nse to de te rm ine if the re i s a c a t e goric a l m a t c h. Se e Tay lor v . Unite d State s , 495 U.S. 575, 598–602 (1990). If the sta te sta tute is not ove rbroa d a

nd ha s no a l te rna tive
e le m e nts, the n

it is a c a te goric a l m a tc h a

nd the re is no ne e d to pe rform the
m odifie d c a te goric a l a

p p roa c h. Se e De

s c amps v . Unite d

State s , 133 S. C t. 2276, 2283–86 (2013); Tay lor , 495 U.S. a t 599–602. An a ggrava te d fe lony

the ft offe nse is “ a

the ft offe nse (inc luding re c e ipt of stole n prope rty ) or burgla ry offe nse for whic h the te rm of im prisonm e nt [is] a t le a st one y e ar.” 8 U.S.C . § 1101(a )(43)(G). The ge ne ric fe de ra l de finition of a the ft offe nse is “ taking of prope rty or a n e xe rc ise of c o n trol ove r prope rty without
c onse n t with the c rim ina l inte nt to deprive the owne r of [the ] rights a n d be ne fits of
owne rship, e ve n if suc h de priva tion is le ss tha

n tota l or pe rm a

ne n t.” Hue rtaGue v ara v . Ashc roft , 321 F.3d 883, 886 (9th C i r. 2003). The Ne va d a

sta tute m a tc he s the ge ne ric de finition of a the ft offe nse . The first e le m e n t, ta

king of prope rty

or e xe rc ise of c ontrol ove r prope rty , m a tc he s the
e le m e nt of “posse s sion of a c re d it c ard” in the Ne va da sta tute

— a pe rson c annot posse s s a nothe r’ s prope rty

without ne c e ssa

rily e xe rc i sing c ontrol ove r the prope rty . The se c ond e le m e nt, without c onse n t, is ne arly ide n tic a l in the Ne va da 3sta

tute and the ge ne ric de finition. The third e le m e nt, c rim i na l inte n t to de p rive the
owne r of rights a

nd be ne fits, is im

plic it in theNe va da

sta tute . The sta

tute re quire s posse s sion of a

c re dit c ard without the

c ardholde r’ s c onse nt a

nd with theinte nt to de fraud the c ardholde r, whic h ne c e ssa rily inc lude s the inte n t to de p rive the owne r of his rights. Se e Randhaw a v . Ashc roft , 298 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th C ir. 2002) (holding tha

t a pe rson who posse sse s som e thing he or she knows to bestole n

“ ne c e ssa rily inte nds to dep rive the [] true owne r of his or he r rights a nd be ne fits of
owne rship.” ). Fina lly , NR S § 205.690(2) is a c a te gory D fe lony , punisha

ble by not le ss tha n one and not m ore tha

n four y e ars’ im

prisonm e nt. This m e e t s § 1101(a )(43)(G)’ s de finition of a the ft offe n se for whic h punishm e nt is a t le a st one y e ar im prisonm e nt. Ac c ordingly , we c o nc lude tha t Arake ly an’ s c onvic tion unde r NR S § 205.690(2) is c a te goric a lly an a ggravate d fe l ony

the ft offe nse unde r § 1101(a )(43)(G). 2. Arake ly an urge s us to follow the Fourth C irc uit opinion in S oliman v
. Gonzale s , 419 F.3d 276 (4th C ir. 2005), whe re the c ourt a pplie d the m odifie d
c a te goric a l a

pproa c h to a

Virginia c re dit c ard the ft a

nd fra u d sta tute . Howe ve r the Ne va da sta tute , unlike the Virginia

sta tute , doe s not c onta in a lte rna t ive e le m e nts
and thus doe s not a llow for the a pplic a tion of the m odifie d c a te goric a l a

pproa c h.

4The re fore , a s the m odifie d c a t e goric a l a pproa c h is not a

pplic a ble , the Fourth C irc uit’ s opinion in Soliman i s ina pposite
. The pe tition for re vie w is DENIED.

5