Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Unpublished
Unpublished
No. 15-1365
Argued:
Decided:
Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
at
the
Section
237(a)(1)(A)
(INA)
(codified
time
of
at
of
the
his
adjustment
Immigration
U.S.C.
and
of
status
under
Nationality
1227(a)(1)(A)),
and
Act
for
burden
of
proving
removability
by
clear
and
convincing
dispositive
factual
and
legal
issue
at
the
removal
convincing
entered
into
evidence
in
order
that
to
the
marriage
provide
Hanna
was
with
fraudulently
an
immigration
Board
of
Immigration
Appeals
(BIA)
sustained
the
IJs
of
his
friends
who
affirmed
they
spent
time
with
the
establish
the
following
factual
events.
and
procedural
course
of
1.
In
2008,
as
part
of
larger
money
laundering
of
certain
vehicles
to
Africa
and
the
Middle
East,
Hannas
immigration
file.
Specifically,
Agent
Brant
changed
her
claimed
addresses
to
Hannas
addresses
days
addresses
to
her
mothers
addresses
following
the
it
was
indicative
of
fraud.
Second,
when
Williford
was
Hanna
were
ostensibly
living
together,
she
gave
law
with
his
immigration
status. 1
Regarding
Willifords
immigration
ultimately
justified
file
Agent
and
removal
Brants
hearing
suspicions.
testimony,
In
2001
May
wedding,
2001
wedding.
Williford
Relative
with
On
filed
U.S.
August
14,
Form
I-130
Citizenship
and
2001,
soon
after
Petition
for
Immigration
the
Alien
Services
(USCIS), seeking a visa for Hanna on the basis that he was now
a relative of a U.S. citizen. In the I-130 petition, Williford
asserted that she and Hanna lived together on West Skylark Drive
in Cary, North Carolina. She had changed her address at the DMV
to
West
Skylark
petition.
On
Drive
two
September
24,
months
prior
to
filing
2001,
Hanna
filed
the
I-130
Form
I-485
USCIS.
In
the
I-485
application,
Hanna
asserted
that
he
U.S.
approved.
citizen
He
also
and
Willifords
asserted,
falsely,
I-130
that
petition
he
had
had
been
never
been
had
denied
any
criminal
7
convictions.
At
the
removal
the
criminal
charges
in
the
I-485
application;
he
the
removal
hearing,
Hanna
addressed
Willifords
leave
their
home
following
arguments
to
live
evidence
further
indicated
an
atypical
matrimony.
1996
as
his
convenience
store,
called
Cary
Beverage,
was
dated for three or four months by the time they wed, but they
really did not get officially engaged. A.R. 141. He asked her
to marry him in or about February or March 2001. No friends or
family
accompanied
them
to
the
courthouse
for
the
wedding
by
the
war
in
parents
but
had
spoken
Lebanon.
Williford
to
by
them
never
telephone,
met
and
Hannas
she
knew
Williford
told
Hanna
that
she
wanted
divorce.
Hanna
did
proceedings.
not
When
respond
Hanna
to
signed
or
the
appear
divorce
in
the
paperwork
divorce
at
the
there
divorce,
with
his
statements
wife
that
until
compounded
she
moved
the
out
earlier
before
the
discrepancies
failed
to
application
disclose
and
the
falsely
conviction
testified
that
on
his
he
earlier
had
never
I-485
been
inadmissible
status
Section
under
at
Section
the
time
of
237(a)(1)(A)
237(a)(1)(G)(ii).
Because
10
adjustment
of
and
marriage
Hanna
denied
immigration
fraud
that
he
under
had
to
the
removal
hearing,
Hanna
filed
motion
in
of
malfeasance
by
the
DHS
in
placing
[Hanna]
in
July
17,
2013,
the
IJ
issued
14-page
decision
evaluated
each
witnesss
credibility.
The
IJ
explained
IJ
found
Agent
Brants
testimony
credible
given
his
11
Ultimately,
clear
and
the
IJ
convincing
concluded
evidence
that
that
the
DHS
Hanna
had
entered
shown
by
into
the
suspect,
circumstances
given
that
no
surrounding
family
or
the
courthouse
friends
wedding
attended,
Hanna
IJ
specifically
found
that
the
couple
had
not
the
constant
changes
of
addresses
before
important
Although
Williford
was
not
present
at
the
removal
the
totality
of
the
record.
The
IJ,
however,
gave
the
12
DHSs
showing
that
he
is
removable.
Hanna
submitted
marriage,
but
the
IJ
did
not
find
the
affidavits
witnesses
Hannas
descriptions
removal
hearing
of
the
testimony.
marriage
For
conflicted
example,
one
with
affiant
claimed that Hanna and Williford had been dating for several
years and were seen as a couple as early as 2000. A.R. 248. The
IJ also gave the affidavits limited weight because none of the
affiants testified at the removal hearing. Moreover, although
bank
statements
account
showed
holders,
none
that
of
Hanna
the
and
checks
Williford
drawn
on
were
the
joint
account
his
ex-wife,
and
that
he
obtained
his
lawful
permanent
that
the
IJ
had
not
erred
or
abused
his
discretion
in
his
440,
444
(4th
Cir.
2011));
see
also
U.S.C.
offer
reasoned
explanation
for
its
decision,
or
if
it
that
the
agencys
factual
findings
are
supported
by
would
have
been
compelled
to
conclude
to
the
Legal
contentions
raised
in
the
immigration
context,
burden
of
proving
removability
by
clear
and
convincing
motive
in
seeking
his
removal
deprived
him
of
due
argument
as
to
convincing
evidence
government
argues
whether
that
that
the
Hanna
this
is
DHS
proved
by
clear
and
removal.
The
was
subject
to
so
because
Hanna
failed
to
Although
he
launches
the
does
not
use
appropriate
the
magic
argument
words,
and
he,
thus
in
essence,
should
not
be
findings
and
decision,
as
adopted
by
the
BIA,
were
the
IJ
satisfactorily
identified
the
bases
for
the
and
Williford
were
married
only
two
months
after
suggests
ceremony
as
that
solemn
Hanna
and
and
Williford
special
did
occasion
not
as
view
would
the
most
which
by
itself
does
not
erect
badge
of
fraud.
was
living
in
New
Jersey
while
Williford
lived
in
North
Carolina.
The
record
shows
that
Williford
changed
her
address
attempted
to
reconcile
these
and
similar
lengthy
trips
abroad.
The
IJ
permissibly
discounted
the
that
he,
businessman
with
more
than
middling
Hannas
false
or
implausible
testimony,
which
the
IJ
not.
No
reasonable
person
reviewing
the
totality
of
the
18
the
clear
and
convincing
standard
that
the
marriage
was
Williford
to
attend
the
removal
hearing
and
testify,
any
investigation,
examination,
hearing,
or
trial.
interrogate,
witnesses.
Id.
examine,
and
1003.10(b).
cross-examine
Because
the
aliens
Federal
and
Rules
any
of
19
determinations
are
limited
to
due
process
statement
whether
the
was
admissible
marriage
was
because
it
directly
fraudulent.
We
discern
related
no
lack
to
of
perjurers
or
persons
motivated
20
by
malice,
[or]
(1970)),
the
risk
of
erroneous
deprivation
is
less
for
such
procedural
protections
as
the
particular
[the]
Workers
v.
totality
(apart
circumstances.
McElroy,
367
of
the
evidence
from
the
Williford
Id.
U.S.
here,
(quoting
886,
895
and
the
statement)
Cafeteria
(1961)).
the
Rest.
Given
substantial
that
&
the
evidence
marriage
was
Agent
Brants
testimony
relationship.
Willifords
Hanna
as
to
argues,
testimony
the
suspiciousness
somewhat
could
have
of
incongruously,
clarified
some
the
that
of
the
while
Hannas
desire
to
challenge
Willifords
to
an
IJs
credibility
findings
if
those
findings
are
367
credibility
(4th
Cir.
finding,
2004)).
the
If
IJ
the
must
IJ
give
makes
an
specific,
adverse
cogent
example,
any
inconsistent
statements,
contradictory
substantial
evidence
if
they
are
based
on
speculation,
22
(quoting Dia v. Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 228, 250 (3d Cir. 2003) (en
banc)).
The IJ considered the appropriate factors in determining
Hannas
credibility.
Hannas
assertions
that
Williford
might
own
testimony
or
any
other
evidence
in
the
record.
Hanna
argues
that
the
IJ
erred
in
denying
his
to
attack
the
governments
motive
in
seeking
his
exclusion
of
Hannas
proposed
evidence
is
governed
is
whether
the
evidence
is
probative.
Id.
(quoting
determining
whether
he
was
removable
on
the
ground
that
he
The
evidence,
DHS
that
needed
Hanna
to
was
show,
by
removable
clear
as
and
convincing
charged.
C.F.R.
1240.8(a). Once that burden was met, Hanna had the burden of
establishing that he . . . [was] eligible for any requested
benefit
exercise
or
of
privilege
and
discretion.
that
it
should
be
Id.
1240.8(d).
granted
The
in
the
governments
selective
enforcement
as
defense
against
his
the
motive
of
the
government
in
enforcing
immigration laws. See id. at 491 (The Executive should not have
to
disclose
its
real
reasons
for
deeming
nationals
of
24
in
the
IJs
exclusion
of
motive
evidence
in
this
case.
III.
For the reasons set forth, the petition for review is
DENIED.
25