Case ID: f-appx_388/html/0620-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

YU WANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-70113.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 29, 2010.
    
    Filed July 19, 2010.
    Scott Bratton, Esquire, Margaret Wong & Associates Co., LPA, Cleveland, OH, for Petitioner.
    Michael C. Heyse, Esquire, Kiley L. Kane, Esquire, Trial, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Yu Wang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing “whether substantial evidence supports a finding by clear and convincing evidence” that petitioner is removable, Nakamoto v. Ashcroft, 363 F.3d 874, 881-82 (9th Cir.2004), we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Wang entered her marriage for the purpose of procuring an immigration benefit where Wang’s citizen-spouse testified that their marriage was never consummated and where Wang and her citizen-spouse never lived together in the United States. See id. at 882-83 (relevant inquiry is whether parties intended to establish a life together at the time of marriage).

Wang’s remaining contentions are unavailing.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.