PEREZ JARAMILLO v. GARLAND (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-05-26No. No. 20-71143

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition for review was denied in part and dismissed in part. The court upheld the agencies' denial of the good faith marriage waiver based on substantial evidence and rejected the petitioner's claims regarding inadequate agency review and unexhausted due process arguments.

Juana Perez Jaramillo, a Mexican citizen with conditional lawful permanent resident status, sought court review of immigration agency decisions denying her request for a waiver of the joint filing requirement. The waiver would have removed conditions on her residency status. She argued that the agencies failed to properly consider her good faith marriage claim and violated her due process rights.

The court found that substantial evidence in the record supported the agencies' determination that Perez Jaramillo did not establish her marriage was entered into in good faith, which is required for the waiver. The court also rejected her claim that the Board of Immigration Appeals failed to meaningfully review the immigration judge's decision, finding her assertion unsupported by the record. Additionally, the court declined to consider a due process argument she raised for the first time on appeal because she had not presented it to the agencies beforehand.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether substantial evidence supports denial of a waiver of joint filing requirement based on failure to prove good faith marriage
Whether the Board of Immigration Appeals meaningfully reviewed the immigration judge's decision
Whether the court has jurisdiction to review a due process claim not presented to the agency before appeal

Procedural posture

The petitioner appealed pro se from the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing her appeal of an immigration judge's decision denying her waiver application.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Juana Perez Jaramillo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judges (“IJ”) decision denying her application under 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4)(B) for a waiver of the joint filing requirement to remove the conditional basis of her lawful permanent resident status. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agencys factual findings. Oropeza-Wong v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1135, 1141 (9th Cir. 2005). We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agencys denial of Perez Jaramillos application for a waiver under 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4)(B), where the testimonial and documentary evidence of record do not compel reversal of the agencys determination that she failed to meet her burden of establishing that she entered into her marriage in good faith. See 8 C.F.R. § 1216.5(e)(2) (listing types of evidence relevant to good faith marriage waiver); Oropeza-Wong, 406 F.3d at 1148 (record did not compel a finding that petitioner met his burden of proving his marriage was entered into in good faith).

Perez Jaramillos contention that the BIA did not meaningfully review the IJs decision fails as unsupported by the record. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (the agency need not write an exegesis on every contention); Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner did not overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the record); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).

We lack jurisdiction to consider the remaining due process claim that Perez Jaramillo raises for the first time in her opening brief because she did not exhaust this claim before the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate. The motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.