N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT

ALB ER T SESAY B ULLY NJIE, Pe titione r,
v. ER IC HOLDER , JR ., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t
. No. 11-71226 Age n c y No. A096-225-268 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Nove m

be r 20, 2014 * * San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : FER

NANDEZ a

nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s, a nd ALB R ITTON, Se nior Distric t Judge
. *** Albe rt Se sa

y B ully Njie (“Njie ” ) se e ks re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration 

# FIL E D
DEC 01 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd m ay not be c ite d to or by

the c ourt of this c irc uit e xc e pt a s provide d by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36- 3.
** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).
*** The Honora

ble W illia m H. Albritton, III, Se nior Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for M iddle Ala bam a , sitting by

de signa tion.Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) de c ision dism issing his a

ppe a l of the Im

m igrat ion Judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de c ision finding him ina dm issible and de ny ing his a pplic at ion for a djustm e nt of sta tus. He a l so se e ks re vie w of the de c ision to de ny his m otion to subpoe na the Se c re t ary of the De p artm e nt of Hom e la nd Se c urity

and the C o m

m issione r of Unite d State s C ustom s a

n d B orde r Prote c tion. W e have jurisdic tion pursua n t to 8 U.S.C . § 1252, a

nd we de ny

his pe tition for re vie w. W he n the B IA c onduc ts a n inde pe nde nt re v ie w of the IJ's findings, we
re vie w the B IA's de c i sion a nd not tha t of the IJ. He rnande z–Gua da rra m a v. Ashc roft, 394 F.3d 674, 679 (9th C ir. 2005). W e re vie w the B IA's de te rm ination of pure l y le ga l que stions de novo. De M artine z v. Ashc roft, 374 F.3d 759, 761 (9th C ir. 2004). W e re vie w fa c tua l findings for substa ntia l e v ide nc e . R idore v. Holde r, 696 F.3d 907, 911 (9th C ir. 2012). W e re vie w for a buse of disc re tion a de c ision not to issue

a subpoe na for the produc tion of doc um e nta ry e vide nc e . Ka ur v. I.N.S. , 237 F.3d 1098, 1099 (9th C ir.), am e nde d on othe r grounds on de nia l of re h’ g, 249 F.3d 830 (9th C ir. 2001). Njie ha s a dva

nc e d a n a rgum e nt re ga

rding the burde n of proof ba se d on his the o ry tha t he should bere ga

rde d a s a pe rson who re m a ine d in the Unite d State s be y ond the tim e a

uthoriz e d. The c ha

rge brought a ga i nst Njie , howe ve r, wa s for

2be ing a

n a lie n pre se nt in theUnite d State s without be ing a dm itte d or pa role d unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1182(a )(6)(A)(i). The re fore , pursua nt to thec h arge whic h

wa s brought, whe n Njie a d

m itte d his a lie na ge , the burde n of proof wa s pla c e d on him to prove the t im e , pla c e , a

nd m anne r of his e ntry . Se e 8 U.S.C . §1361; Ira n v. I.N.S., 656 F.2d 469, 472 (9th C ir. 1981); se e a l so M a tte r of B e nite z , 19 I. & N. De c . 173, 175 (B IA 1984) (sta

ting tha t the pe titione r’ s a dm ission e sta blishe d his a lie na ge , a

nd he fa ile d to m e e t his burde n to e sta blish thetim e , pla c e , an d m anne r of his e ntry into the U nite d State s). Njie pre s e nte d a

n a ffida vit whic h sta

te s tha t he e nte re d the Unite d

State s through Ne w York, Ne w York on a spe c i fic date , and wa s inspe c te d a nd a dm itte d by im m igration a

uthoritie s. The re is no c orroborating e v ide nc e to tha t e ffe c t, howe v e r. In fa c t , the othe r e vide nc e subm itte d by Njie , his fa

the r’ s a ffidavit, is inc o nsiste nt with Njie ’ s a ffidavit a s to the date of e ntry into theUnite d State s. Unde r substa

n tia l e vide nc e re vie w, “ to re ve rse the B IA with re spe c t to a finding of fa c t , the e vide nc e m

ust c om pe l a diffe re nt c onc lusion from the one re a c he d by

the B IA.” Zhe ng v. Holde r, 644 F.3d 829, 835 (9th C ir. 2011). Tha t sta nda rd is not
m e t he re . B e c a

use Njie did not susta

in his burde n of proof, he is pre sum e d to be in the U nite d State s ille ga lly an d is the re fore re m o va

ble . Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1361; Ira n, 656 F.2d a

t 471.

3As to Njie ’ s argum e nt tha t he wa s thwa

rte d in his e ffort to pre se nt e vide nc e be c a use his m otion to subpoe

na c ustodia ns of re c ords wa s de nie d, give n the la c k of
any proof tha t the inform a tion re que ste d e xiste d e ve n a fte r Njie ha d m a de a Fre e dom of Inform a tion Ac t re que st, the de nia l of a nothe r a tte m

pt to obta in the
sam e inform a tion wa s not a n a buse of disc re tion. PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

4