NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________ No. 17-1692 ____________ BEKIR SAHIN, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent ____________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A079-707-590) Immigration Judge: Honorable Annie S. Garcy ____________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) October 10, 2017 Before: HARDIMAN, SHWARTZ, and ROTH, Circuit Judges. (Opinion Filed: November 30, 2017) ____________ OPINION* ____________ HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge. Bekir Sahin petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). For the reasons that follow, we will deny his petition in part and dismiss in part. I A native of Turkey, Sahin married a U.S. citizen in 2002 and became a conditional permanent resident a year later. Just four months into the marriage, Sahin’s wife suffered a miscarriage, and she later filed for an annulment, alleging that Sahin’s “intention with respect to the marriage was fraudulent” because he “entered the marriage solely for purposes of attaining immigration benefits.” App. 154. In April 2004, the New Jersey Superior Court annulled the marriage. In 2006, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) terminated Sahin’s status as a conditional resident. Sahin then sought to remove the conditions on his lawful permanent resident status under 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4)(B). Because he was no longer married, however, Sahin had to seek a waiver of the requirement that he file a joint petition with his spouse. And that waiver could be granted only if Sahin demonstrated that his marriage had been in “good faith.” See id. DHS denied this good faith waiver request, so Sahin proceeded before an Immigration Judge (IJ). After several delays * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. 2 between 2010 and 2015, the IJ held a hearing and denied Sahin’s good faith waiver request. In doing so, the IJ relied on the finding of the New Jersey Superior Court that Sahin’s marriage was a sham (i.e., entered into only for immigration reasons) to hold that Sahin failed to carry his burden. The BIA affirmed, finding “no clear error in [the IJ’s] conclusion that [Sahin]’s intent, at the time of the marriage, was for an immigration benefit and not to create a life together.” App. 5. Sahin timely appealed. II1 Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), we lack jurisdiction to review discretionary denials of relief like the good faith waiver Sahin requested. Urena-Tavarez v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 154, 161 (3d Cir. 2004). Recognizing this limitation, Sahin advances two arguments he claims to be legal or constitutional such that we may exercise jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). Specifically, Sahin argues that his due process rights were violated and that the agency assigned him the wrong burden of proof. As we shall explain, the first claim fails on the merits and we lack jurisdiction over the second claim. 1 The IJ had authority to consider the good faith ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals