Opinion ID: 169469
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Legality of the Restitution O rder

Text: M r. Rivera-Bottzeck first argues that the BIA erred in relying on the amount of the $65,000 restitution order, as the basis for concluding there was evidence of loss to the victims exceeding $10,000, because he challenged the legality of that order. He asserts that under Colorado law an order must be based on actual damages, that there were no actual damages as a result of his offense, and therefore the restitution order is illegal. He characterizes his agreement to pay restitution as buying back the investors’ claims to any profit from the sale of his invention, rather than compensation for their losses. Therefore, he maintains that the BIA should have evaluated the legality of the restitution order, and having failed to do so, that this court should make that determination in this appeal. In the absence of such a determination, M r. Rivera-Bottzeck contends that the BIA could not rely on the restitution order, the validity of which he challenges. 1 1 For this proposition M r. Rivera-Bottzeck relies on an unpublished decision of this court, St. John v. Ashcroft, No. 01-5179, 43 F. App’x 281 (10th Cir. 2002) (continued...) -7- W e disagree. “O nce the conviction becomes final, it provides a valid basis for deportation unless it is overturned in a post-conviction proceeding.” Trench v. INS, 783 F.2d 181, 184 (10th Cir. 1986) (quotation omitted). W e hold that M r. Rivera-Bottzeck cannot collaterally attack the validity of the state court restitution order in these removal proceedings. See id. (holding that BIA was not authorized to evaluate the validity of petitioner’s state court convictions); Vargas v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 451 F.3d 1105, 1107 (10th Cir. 2006) (holding that this court had no authority to address the petitioner’s challenge to the validity of his guilty plea in state court, regardless of w hether it had merit).