NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 09a0322n.06 Filed: May

6, 2009 No. 08-4154 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
MOHAMED B EKHI T, Petitioner,
v.
ERI C H
. HOL DER, J R., U nited State s At torney Ge ne ra l, Re sp on de nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) PETI TI ON F OR REVI E W OF A N ORDER OF TH E BO ARD OF IM M IG RA T IO N A P P E A LS

B e fo re : SI L ER, GI L MA

N, and KE TH L ED GE , Ci rc uit

Judg e s. SILE R , Circuit J udg e. Mohame d Be khit appeals the de cision of the B oard of I mmigration Appea ls ( “ B I A ” ) a f

f ir mi n g th e d e c is io no f

th e I mm igr a ti o nJu d g e ( “ I J” ) an d d e n yin g h is p e tition to r e mov e the c on dit ion a l ba sis of his lawful pe rm ane nt r e sid e nt s tatus be c a us e his marr ia g e to Te re sa L a ur e n H us s w a s n ot b on a

fi de. He argues tha

t th e B I A e rr e d in

fi nd ingthat he fa ile d to object to the introduction of improper evidenc e; he wa s deprived of his constituti onal rig ht to due proce ss of law be cause he cou l d not question a materia l witness and the I J improperly considere d unreliable hear say

evidenc e; and the I J improperly considered p o s t -m arriag e conduc t. For the following rea sons, we DENY the petition for re view. I. BACKG ROUNDNo. 08-4154

Be khit v. Holder

- 2 - Be khit, a native and citiz en of Eg y pt, enter ed the United S tates in 1997 as a nonimmig rant with authorization to remain until J une 1998. In Aug ust 2001, he rec eived c onditional permane nt resident status ba sed on his ma rriag e to Ter esa, a

United States citizen. I n 2 00 3, B e kh it a nd Te re sa joi ntl y fi le d a F or

m I -7 51 to r e mov e the c on dit ion a l st a tus . In 2 00 4, the Un ite d St a te s Ci tize ns hip and I mmig r a ti o nSe r

v ic e ( “ U SC I S” ) d e te r

mi n e d th a t t h e ir ma r r ia g e w a s a

“ s h a m” an d

te r mi n a te d Be khit’s permane nt resident status. At a re mov a l he a

ri ngbe fo re the I J, B e kh it c la ime d that he mov e d f ro m E g y pt t o G re e c e in 1994, wher e he obta ined leg al status afte r marr ying a Greek c itiz en. The re, he met an Eg y ptian
woman n am ed Zi zi. I n 1997, he divorc ed and move d to the United States. Z izi later c ame to the United States and located him. I n 1999, he had his fir st child with Z izi and met Te resa . I n J anuar y 20 01 , h e ha d h is s e c on d ch ild wi th Z izi an d the n mar ri e d Te re sa . He sta

rt e d h a vin g mari ta l pr ob le ms
e ig ht o r n ine months late r. He a dmi tte d th a t hi s r e latio ns hip wi th Z iz i may hav e be e n p art ia lly to blame. He lived only

with Tere sa fr om 2001 until t he beg inning of 2003, and he lived on and off with Tere sa and Z izi for the r est of 2003 and 2004. I n May 2003, he and Tere sa filed a joint Form I -751 that did not list his two children with Z izi
. I n 2004, he moved out of Ter esa’ s house for the la s t t im e in

A p r il ; h a d h is th ir d c h il d w it h Z iz i in Ju n e ; a n d mo v e d to Ja c k s o n , T e n n e s s e e , w it h Z iz i
and wi tho ut Te re sa in July
. I n De c e mbe r 2 00 4, a ft e r l ivi nga pa rt fo r s e ve ra l mo nth s, he and Te re sa
wer e sepa rate ly interviewe d about their marria g e in r elation to the joint Form I -751. In November 20 05 , h e ha d a

no the r ch ild wi th Z izi. He and Te re sa are div or c e d, and

he sti ll l ive s in

Jac ks on wi th Z izi and his four c hildren.No. 08-4154

Be khit v. Holder

- 3 - The I J denied B ekhit’s petition to remove the c onditional basis o f h i s l aw ful perma nent resident status and or dere d remova l to Egy pt. The I J found that B ekhit’s marr iag e was not bona fide. The I J not ed t h at Bekhit’s testimony was “ unconvincing ,” the timeline of e vents showed “ how ins ub sta nti a l th e ma

rr ia g e to T e re sa

wa s, ” ne ith e r Te re sa no r Z izi tes tif ie d ab out th e ir

re latio ns hip with Be khit, and the ca se “r eeks of fra ud.” The B I A dismissed Bekh i t ’s ap p ea l , finding (1) no e rror in the I J ’s deter

mination that the Gover nment “sustained its burden of establishing that the information in [Be khit’s] For m I -751 wa s
n o t tr u e an d th a t [B e kh it ] h a d e n te r e d into a ma r r ia g e f o r th e p u r p o s e o f e v a d in g the immigra tion laws ” and (2 ) n o c le ar e rr or

in t he un de rl yingfa c tua l f

ind ing s. I n re sp on se to B e kh it’ s a rgume nts that the Notice of T er m ination and supporting interview note s were improperly admitted or considere d, the B I A re asoned that the I J was re quired to re view the Notice of Ter mination ( i.e. , the termination dec ision that Be khit wa s appea ling) and was permitted to admit the supporting interview notes bec ause both doc uments wer e “cle arly rele vant and materia l”; Be khit’s c ounsel did not objec t to th e r e li a

b il it y o f th e d o c u me n ts , e v e nth o u g hh e h a d th e o p p o rtu

n it y to d o s o ; t

h e r e w a s no

“ sh ow ingof

sp e c if ic dis a g re e me nt w iththe a c c ur a c y of the int e rv ie w” that w ou ld n e c e ssi tate c ro ssexamination; and Bekhit did not persua sively challeng e th e au t h enticity or ac cura cy

of either document. I t also noted that his testimony reve aled the sa

me information as the Notice of Te rm inatio n a

nd fo un d th a t he wa s n ot d e nie d d ue pr oc e ss b e c a

use he “receiv e d a

fu ll a nd fa ir he ari ng , o n th e me ri ts of his c la im,
. . . wa s r e pr e se nte d b y c ouns e l and

a ff or de d th e op po rt

un ity to pr e se nt, e xami ne , a

nd ob je c t to e viden c e that a ff

e c te d h is c la im, ” and

he fa ile d to de mon str a te p re j u d i c e . I nre s p o n s e t o Be kh i t ’s ar gu m en tt h at t h e IJ i mp ro p er l y co n s i d er edp o s t -m arri ageNo. 08-4154

Be khit v. Holder

- 4 - conduct, the B I A found that “ the conduc t of the parties afte r t he marriag e is rele vant t o their intent at the time of mar

riag e.” II. JU RI SDI CT ION AN D ST AN DA RD OF RE VI EW This court has jurisdiction to revie w a final order of re moval under 8 U .S.C. § 1252. “W here , as h er e, t h e BI A ad o p t s an d af fi rm s t h e I J ’s o p i n i o n , b u t p ro v i d es ad d i t i o n al re as o n s fo r i t s ru l i n g, we review the I J ’s opi nion as we ll as the BIA’s additional re asons.” Zoarab v. Mukase y , 524 F.3d 777, 780 (6th Cir. 2008). We r ever se only if the evidenc e “not only supports a contra

ry conclusion, but indeed c om

pe ls i t .” Fang Huang v. M ukasey , 523 F.3d 640, 649 ( 6th Cir. 2008). III . D ISC USS ION I f an a lien has bee n g rante d conditional perma nent resident status ba sed on a mar riag e to a United States citizen, the alien and his spouse must petition for re moval of the c onditional status within ninety day s of t he second anniver sary of obt aining that status. Id. a t 64 8- 64 9 (c iti ng 8 U .S. C. § 1186a(a )(1) , (d)( 2)). Af ter re viewingthe pet i t i o n and intervie wing the spouses, the Attorne y Gene ral (“ AG”) will determine whe ther the ma rriag e “w as ente red into f

or the purpose of proc uring
an al i en’s admission as an immi g rant.” Id. a t 6 4 9 ( qu o ti n g 8 U
. S. C. § 1 1 8 6 a ( b ) ( 1 ) )
. I f the AG deter mines that the m arr iag e was enter ed int o for imm igr ation purposes (or was not bona f ide), the conditional perma

nent re sident status will be terminated. Id. The I J found that the “ Gover nment h as s h own by

[a preponder ance of the e vidence ] t hat [Bekhit’s] is not a bona f ide marr iag e” ba sed on his omission of vit al information fr om various imm igrati on pe tit ion s, his se lf -s e rv ingand

un c on vin c ingte sti mony , a nd the tim e lin e of

e ve nts leadingup to and subsequent t o h is marriag e. The BIA ag ree d, finding “no er ror in the [I J ’sNo. 08-4154

Be khit v. Holder

- 5 - de c isi on ] fi nd ingthat [th e Go ve rnme nt] s us ta ine d its burd e n of e sta bli sh ing that the inf

or matio n in responde nt’s For

m I -751 wa s not true and tha t t h e responde nt had enter ed into a mar riag e for the purpose of

evadingthe immigration laws.” These findings ar e re as o nable a nd supported by substantial evidence in the rec ord, consider ed as a whole. A. P ost-M arriage Condu ct The I J proper ly considere d post-marria g e conduct in finding that Be khit’s marriag e wa s not bona fide . Whil e the “ce ntral question” in de termining the nature of a ma rriag e is the par

ties’ intent at the time of marria g e, the conduct of the parties befor e and afte r marria g e is r eleva nt to determine that intent. In re Soriano , 1 9 I
. & N
. De c. 7 6 4 , 7 6 5 -6 6 (B I A 1 9 8 8 ) ( ci t i n g Lutw ak v. U nited States , 344 U.S. 604 (1953)). B. E vid e nt iar y R uling s a nd D ue P r oc e ss I mmigration procee dings a re n o t s u b

ject to the F eder al Rules of Evidenc e. Hassan v. Gonzales , 403 F.3d 429, 435 (6th Cir. 2005)
. The I J “may rec eive in e vidence any oral or written statement that is materia l and relevant to any issue in the case previously made by the re spondent or any other pe rson duringany

investi gat i o n , examination, hearing , or trial.” 8 C.F .R. § 1240.7(a); Da llo v . I NS , 7 65 F .2 d 5 81 , 5 86 (6 th C ir . 1 98 5) . A nd , “ we re vie w e vid e nti ary ru lin g s b y

I Js onl y to deter mine whether such rulings have resulted in a violation of due pr ocess.” Hassan , 403 F.3d
a t 43 5- 36 (“ F if

th A me ndme nt gua

ra nte e s o f d ue pr oc e ss e xten d to a lie ns in [r e mov a l] pr oc e e din g s, entitling them to a f

ull and fair he aring .”). The I J di d n o t er r in admitting into evidence the Notice of Termination and suppor ting interview note s. The B I A cor rec tly found t hat bot h wer e “clear ly rele vant and materia l.” Bekhit wasNo. 08-4154

Be khit v. Holder

- 6 - appea ling the U SCI S’s decision to terminate his permane nt resident status. To dete rmine whe ther the USC I S pr op e rl y

de nie d th e pe tit ion , it

wa s a pp ro pr iate fo r th e I J to a dmi t and c on sid e r i ts decision as we ll as the underly ing r easons. See 8 U.S. C. § 11 86 a (c )( 3) (D ). Th e B I A a lso c or re c tly found that B ekhit could not challeng e the reliability of t he Notice of Termination or interview notes on appea l beca

use his counsel did not object to their r eliability at the hea ring
. See Gill v . Gonzales , 127 F. App’x 860, 863 (6th Cir. 2005) (finding that the petitioner wa s bound by the re prese ntation of his c ouns e l to th e I J). E ve n th ou g h B e kh it’ s c ouns e l ob je c te d to the a dmi ssi on

of the do c ume nts at a master cale nder hear ing, he did not object to their admission or reliability at the mer its hearing when g iven the opportunity to do so. The B I A cor

rec tly found that B ekhit was not denie d due proc ess of lawand that he “ rec eived
a fu ll a nd fa ir he ari ngon

the me ri ts o f h is c la im. ” Ev en th ou ghhe a lle g e d e rr or , h e fa ile d to demonstrate that he was pr ejudiced by the claimed violations. The I J did not ref ere nce or rely on the interview note s in reac hing his c onclusion, relying instea d on Be khit’s testimony and immigr ation petitions. At the remova l he aring , Be khit did not obje ct to the admission or reliability o f t he int e rv ie w n ote s, dis pute any of the inf or matio n in c lud e d in the int e rv ie w not e s, or re qu e st to c ro ssexamine the interviewe r. Fur ther, his testimony supported, rather than contradic ted, the conte nts of the interviewnotes. Thus, the admission of the intervie w notes wa s not “fundame ntally unfair.” See A l ex a n drov v. G onzales , 4 42 F .3 d 3 95 , 4 06 -0 7 ( 6th Cir .2 00 6) (“ [W]he re a

he ars ay do c ume nt i s admitted but not primarily relied upon a

nd the petitioner re ceive s the opportunity to rebut the document’s c onclusions throug h his witnesses, the funda mental fairne ss of the proc eeding s has notNo. 08-4154

Be khit v. Holder

- 7 - been imping ed.”)
. As a result of hi s failure to show prejudice , his due process claims mus t fail. See W ar ne r v . A sh c ro

ft , 381 F.3d 534 539 ( 6th Cir. 2004). P ETIT ION DENIED.