Case ID: f-appx_540/html/0656-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

DONGHONG YE, aka Dong Hong Ye, Petitioner, v. ERic H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-70971.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Sept. 12, 2013.
    Filed Sept. 26, 2013.
    Achristopher John Stender, Esquire, Immigration Practice Group A Professional Corporation, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Anna Nelson, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and BEISTLINE, Chief District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Ralph R. Beistline, Chief United States District Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Donghong Ye, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing Ye’s appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying any relief from removal. The denial was on the basis of marriage fraud. Substantial evidence supported the finding of marriage fraud, including the admission of Ye’s ex-wife that she was paid to enter a marriage that was not bona fide. The BIA did not fail to take hardship claims into account or otherwise abuse its discretion when it denied a waiver of inadmissability.

Ye’s principal argument is that the IJ should not have denied him a continuance in order to permit his mother to obtain an interpreter. The only purpose that was stated for her testimony was that she would describe the persecution Ye’s father experienced when Ye was a child. Since there was no nexus between the father’s persecution and the likelihood of Ye himself being persecuted, the testimony could not have affected the decision in the case. See Singh v. I.N.S., 184 F.3d 962, 967 (9th Cir.1998).

The petition for review is DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.