N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
GIOVANNI M AR IA VILC HEZ ZAR ATE, AKA Giova

nni Vilc he s, AKA Giova ni Vilc he z Za

ra t e , AKA Giova

nni Vic he z Za

ra te , Pe t i tione r,
v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 17-73267 Age n c y No. A077-016-880
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 July 21, 2020 ** B e fore : GR

AB E R , TALLM AN, a

nd C LIFTON, C irc uit Judge s. Giova nni M aria Vilc h e z Za

ra te , a native and c itiz e n of Pe ru, pe titions for
re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ orde r dism issing he r a p p e a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s de c i sion pre te rm itting he r a p plic a tion for a djustm e nt of sta tus. 

# F IL ED JUL 23 2020 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 is not pre c e de nt 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).W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for substa ntia l e vide nc e the a ge nc y ’ s fa c tua l findings, a n d re vie wde novo que stions of la w. Tamang v
. Holde r , 598 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th C ir. 2010). W e de ny the pe t ition for re vie w. 1. The B IA did not e rr in a ffirm ing the IJ’ s de te rm ination tha t Vilc he z Zara te is ina d

m issiblebe c a

use of willful mi sre pre se ntation. Se e 8 U.S.C
. § 1182(a )(6)(C )(i). Vilc he z Zara te ’ s June 1999 a nd M arc h 2001 a

pplic a tions for a djustm e nt of sta tus m isre pre se nte d the m a te ria l fa c t of he r m arria g e to a U.S. c itiz e n through he r use of an ina

uthe ntic m arria g e c e rtific a t e to support both a pplic ations. Substa

ntia l
e vide nc e supports the

IJ’ s finding by

c le ar and c onvinc ing e vide nc e tha t she kne w the m arria ge wa s not le gitim a te and tha t the m arria ge c e rtific ate wa s not a uthe ntic whe n she use d it to se e k im m igration be ne fits. Se e N ak amoto v . Ashc r oft , 363 F.3d 874, 882 (9th C ir. 2004) (c om bining thesubsta

ntia l e v ide nc e sta

nda rd of re vie w with the burde n of proof). The B IA prope rly

c onside re d re le va

nt e vide nc e an d suffic ie ntly e xpla ine d its de c ision. Se e N

ajmabadi v . Holde r , 597 F.3d 983, 990–91 (9th C ir. 2010). The B IA a ppropria te ly c onside re d the inc onsiste nc ie s the IJ note d be twe e n the inform a t ion on them arria ge c e rtific a te and Vilc h e z Za ra te ’ s te s tim o ny . Whe re the de ta ils on thedoc um e nt c onflic te d with thede ta ils she re c a l le d a bout the a lle ge d
2c e re m ony , suc h a s the num be r of witne sse s a

nd the nam e of the offic ia nt, it wa s re a s ona ble to infe r that she kne w the m arria ge c e rtific at e wa s ina uthe n tic whe n she
re vie we d and signe d it. That Vilc he z Za ra te none the le ss subm itte d the m arria ge c e rtific a te , swe aring to its truth a nd a c c ura c y , supports a

finding of willful
m isre pre se ntation. S

e e Forbe s v . IN S , 48 F.3d 439, 442 (9th C ir. 1995) (noting that to e s ta blish a willful misre p re se ntation, showing “ knowle dge of the fa lsity

of a
re pre se ntation is suffic ie nt” ). The B IA a lso a

ppropria te ly c onside re d

c irc um sta

nc e s showing tha

t the
a lle ge d m arria ge wa s not bona fide , supporting the

IJ’ s finding tha

t Vilc he z Za

ra t e kne w he r re pre se ntations we re fa lse
. Se e Malhi v . I.N .S. , 336 F.3d 989, 994 (9th C ir. 2003) (c onside ring e v ide nc e “ probat ive of the m otiva tion for m arria ge ” to de te rm i ne whe t

h e r fraud oc c urre d). The B IA c onside re d the IJ’ s findings
re ga rding the short tim e in whic h the pa rtie s kne we a c h othe r, the unusua l na ture of the i r purporte d c e re m ony , a nd the ir se pa

ra te living a

rra n ge m e nts a

nd fe w inte ra c tions the re a fte r. Se e id. ; N ak amoto , 363 F.3d a

t 882. Evidenc e tha

t Vilc he z Zara te sought a

divorc e in 2009 m ay

sugge st tha

t she be lie ve d

in the “ ba

re fa c t” of he r m arria ge , Malhi , 336 F.3d a t 994, but doe s not unde rc ut the finding tha t he r m otiva t ion wa s to obta in im

m igration be ne fits. Nor doe s it c om pe l the c onc lusion

3that

she be lie ve d the m arria g e c e rtific a te she use d in a tte m p t to obta in suc h be ne fits wa s a c c ura te and a uthe ntic
. The B IA did not e rr in a ffirm ing the IJ’ s ina dm issibility de te rm ination. B e c a use Vilc he z Za

ra te is ina dm issible , it follows tha t the a ge nc y

prope rly pre t e rm itte d he r late st a

pplic a tion for a djustm e nt of sta t us. 8 U.S.C . § 1255(a ). 2. Vilc he z Za

ra te ’ s due proc e s s c l a im

fa ils, whe re the re c ord doe s not support he r c onte ntions tha t the IJ wa s bia se d a

nd pre judge d he r c a se . Se e Almaghzar v . Gonzale

s , 457 F.3d 915, 922 (9th C ir. 2006) (holding tha t pe titione r

“ ha d am ple opportunity

to pre se nt his c a se , a

n d the re c ord a s a

whole doe s not sugge s t tha

t the IJ did not c onduc t the he aring with a n ope n m ind” ); Lata v . IN S , 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th C ir. 2000) (re quiring e rror an d substa ntia l pre j udic e to pre v a i l on a

due proc e ss c la im ). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE W DE NIE D.

4