Case Name: Khunsela PROM, AKA Khunsela Knunela, AKA Danny Prom, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-03-21
Citations: 513 F. App'x 659
Docket Number: No. 11-71730
Parties: Khunsela PROM, AKA Khunsela Knunela, AKA Danny Prom, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, W. FLETCHER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 513
Pages: 659–660

Head Matter:
Khunsela PROM, AKA Khunsela Knunela, AKA Danny Prom, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-71730.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted March 4, 2013.
Filed March 21, 2013.
Dawn S. Conrad, Trial, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: FERNANDEZ, W. FLETCHER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Khunsela Prom petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' determination that he was removable because he was an aggravated felon. We deny the petition.
The BIA did not err when it determined that Prom was an aggravated felon because: (a) he conspired to commit a felony involving fraud or deceit when he joined others in perpetrating a scheme to defraud casinos by cheating at card games, and (b) the victims lost over $10,000. When a modified categorical analysis is used, with a proper consideration of other facts, it is apparent that, at the very least, Prom's conspiracy to transport the fraudulently obtained funds in interstate and foreign commerce was a crime involving the fraud itself. Moreover, the order at sentencing that he pay some $19,150 in restitution to one of the casinos was sufficient to sustain a determination that the victims had lost over $10,000. Thus, he was removable on that ground alone.
Therefore, we must deny the petition.
Petition DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii).
. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i), (U).
. See Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 16, 125 S.Ct. 1254, 1257, 161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005); Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 602, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 2160, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990); Young v. Holder, 697 F.3d 976, 983 (9th Cir.2012) (en banc); Carlos-Blaza v. Holder, 611 F.3d 583, 589 (9th Cir.2010).
.See Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29, 38-40, 129 S.Ct. 2294, 2301-02, 174 L.Ed.2d 22 (2009).
. See 18 U.S.C. § 2314.
. The BIA also determined that Prom had committed an aggravated felony because one object of the conspiracy was to make materially false and fraudulent statements to federal investigating officers and one conspirator did just that. See 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2). We need not, and do not, consider that separate determination.
.Because Prom is an aggravated felon, his claim, if any, regarding cancellation of removal is moot. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(3).