NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ________________ No. 17-1096 SALIOU BAH, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent ________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A078-689-974) Immigration Judge: Charles Honeyman ________________ Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) on October 3, 2017 Before: SHWARTZ and ROTH, Circuit Judges and PAPPERT*, District Judge (Opinion filed: June 12, 2018) OPINION ** ________________ * The Honorable Gerald J. Pappert, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. ** This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. ROTH, Circuit Judge Petitioner Saliou Bah, a native and citizen of Guinea, seeks review of a BIA decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) final order of removal and pretermission and denial of Bah’s applications for adjustment of status and waiver of inadmissibility. For the reasons stated below, we will deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. I. Bah entered the United States on November 22, 1997 on a temporary business visa and has remained in the country ever since. In 1999, Bah’s friend introduced him to an unnamed individual who told Bah that he could help him obtain a work permit by falsely claiming that Bah had been a slave in Mauritania. Instead, the individual prepared an asylum application for Bah, which included a fabricated story about Bah being a Mauritanian slave. The asylum application also falsely stated that Bah had entered the United States on December 20, 1999, more than two years after his actual date of entry. Bah signed and filed the fraudulent application, although he maintains that he always believed he was applying for a work permit and did not understand that he was in fact applying for asylum. On August 30, 2000, Bah appeared before an Asylum Officer (AO) to be interviewed under oath. The unnamed individual accompanied Bah to the interview and served as Bah’s translator. The AO ultimately concluded that Bah had not provided clear and convincing evidence of the date of his entry into the United States and therefore 2 denied his application as untimely. 1 The AO did not rule on the merits of Bah’s application. The former Immigration and Naturalization Service then charged Bah with removability and issued a notice to appear. Bah failed to appear at the hearing, and, in absentia, the IJ ordered him removed. In August of 2003, Bah married a U.S. citizen, Retonya Bah, who subsequently gave birth to their U.S. citizen son. Based on his marriage to a U.S. citizen, Bah later filed for adjustment of status, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1255. After becoming aware of the outstanding removal order, Bah also requested waivers of inadmissibility, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h), (i). Bah otherwise conceded removability. On March 10, 2014, the IJ conducted a merits hearing. In a written opinion, the IJ found that Bah ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals