Case ID: f-appx_339/html/0825-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Perla Montebon BENZINE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-73386.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 29, 2009.
    
    Filed Aug. 3, 2009.
    
      Avalyn Castillo Langemeier, Esquire, Foster Quan, LLP, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
    HI-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Honolulu, HI, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Jennifer L. Lightbody, Esquire, Janice Kay Redfern, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before WALLACE, LEAVY, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Perla Montebon Benzine, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the IJ’s findings of fact, Moran v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1089, 1091 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Benzine was removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(A) as an alien who at the time of entry was inadmissible for lack of valid entry documentation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). The record supports the conclusion that Benzine’s marriage was not valid under Philippine law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(3)(A); see also Mayo v. Schiltgen, 921 F.2d 177, 180 (8th Cir.1990) (remanding for determination as to validity of marriage where petitioner “submitted substantial authority supporting her argument that if the marriage ceremony was performed before issuance of a license, the marriage is void under Philippine law”).

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