NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 3 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AMIN MOHAMMED, No. 17-71638 Petitioner, Agency No. A095-715-501 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted July 10, 2020 Pasadena, California Before: BALDOCK,** BERZON, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges. Amin Mohammed petitions this Court to review the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (“BIA’s”) dismissal of his appeal from the immigration judge’s (“IJ’s”) removal order. Mohammed argues: (1) the IJ lacked jurisdiction over his I-751 application; (2) the IJ erred by relying on fundamentally unfair hearsay evidence; * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Bobby R. Baldock, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation. and (3) the IJ’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence. We hold the IJ properly exercised jurisdiction over Mohammed’s I-751 application. We further conclude that, even if we exclude the allegedly inadmissible hearsay evidence, the IJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we exercise jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(1) and (5) (2012) and deny Mohammed’s petition for review. 1. Mohammed first argues that the BIA’s decision in In re Stowers required the IJ to continue his removal proceedings until the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) rendered a decision on his third Form I-751 petition. See In re Stowers, 22 I. & N. Dec. 605 (BIA 1999). In In re Stowers, the BIA held “where an alien is prima facie eligible for a waiver under [8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4)] and wishes to have his or her waiver application adjudicated by the [USCIS], the proceedings should be continued in order to allow the [USCIS] to adjudicate the waiver application.” 22 I. & N. Dec. at 613–14. We review whether the BIA clearly departed from its own standards for an abuse of discretion. Mejia v. Sessions, 868 F.3d 1118, 1121 (9th Cir. 2017). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in rejecting Mohammed’s argument. First, the BIA noted that the IJ exercised jurisdiction over Mohammed’s second I- 751 application, which the USCIS had already denied, not his third petition, which was still pending. Second, the BIA correctly concluded Mohammed failed to show 2 17-71638 he was “prima facie eligible” for relief. The USCIS denied Mohammed’s first and second I-751 petitions because Mohammed failed to establish that he married in good faith. Mohammed’s third I-751 petition sought relief on the same ground, and so, the USCIS would likely deny the petition for the same reason. Therefore, Mohammed was not prima facie eligible for relief, and it was not an abuse of discretion for the BIA to affirm the IJ’s decision to exercise jurisdiction in Mohammed’s case without waiting for a third denial. 2. Mohammed further claims the IJ’s decision was (1) based on ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals