2004 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 3-26-2004 

# D ou gl a s v . Att y Ge n U S A P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 02-2924

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" D ou gl as v . Att y Ge n U SA" (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 911. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/911NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

___________ No. 02-2924

___________ BASIL DOU GLAS, Petitioner
v. JOHN AS HCROFT , A TTORNE Y GENERAL OF

THE UN ITED STATES, Respondent

___________ ON APPEAL FROM THE BOARD O F IMMIGRATION APPEALS (No. A70-844-938)

___________ Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

February 6, 2004 BE FO RE : NY GA AR D, S M ITH , and GR EE NB ER G, Circu it Judges
.

(Fil ed: March 26, 2004)

___________ OPINI ON OF THE COURT

___________2

NY GA AR D, Circu it Judge
.

Appellant

Basil Washington Douglas peti tions for revi ew of a final or der of removal i ssued by

the Board of I mmigrati on Appeals (“BIA”). The BIA affirmed without opinion t he decisi on of an Immigrat ion Judge ( “IJ”) , upholding the Immigr ation and Naturali zati on Service ( “INS”) District Dir ector’ s denialof a joi nt peti tion for the
remo val of

the co ndition al basis of D oug las’s pe rman ent res ident sta tus. W e w ill deny his petition. I.

Since we write solel y for the parties, a brief

review of the facts will s uffice. Douglas is a

native and cit izen of Jamaica, and has thr ee grown chil dren who resi de there
. He entered t

he United States as a visi tor i n 1990, and t esti fied i n front of t he IJ that he met Beatri ce Richards on, a U.S. citi zen, i n December 1990. Douglas and Ric hardson married in April 1993, and Douglas was grant ed condit ional l awful permanent r esident stat us, se t to expire in Apri l 1996. I n January 1996, Douglas and hi s wife fil ed a joi nt petition to r emove the conditions on hi s permanent r esident stat us. Douglas test ifie d that pr obl ems de ve lo pe d i n the mar ri ag e a s are su lt

of hi s d es ir e t o s en d mo ne y to hi s g ro wn childr en in Jamai ca, and t hat he and hi s wife separ ated i n July 1996. Douglas and his wife appeared t ogether, however, in an August 1997 inter view with the INS regardi ng their joint applic ation. At the ti me, both l ied and t old the INS officialthat t

hey were l iving t ogether, although Dougla s lat er admitted the y had bee n3

separat ed for at

least a year. Duri ng the INS int erview, Dougla s and his wif e gave numerous incons ist ent answers regardi ng the det ails of his employ ment and the s etup of the apartment where they clai med to be living. Based on these discrepancies, as well as a paucity of r elia

ble evi dence support ing the va lidi ty of the marr iage, the INS District Director denied their j oint appl icat ion. The IJ affirmed the denial of the jo int application after a h earing in Janu ary 1999, holdi ng that t

he government had cl early establ ished t

hat Douglas’ s marri age was entere d into for

immigrat ion purpose s. The BIA affir med the IJ’ s decis ion without opinion, and Douglas appeal ed. II.

Douglas fir st chal lenges t he BIA’s decis ion to af firm the IJ’s ruli ng without
an o pin ion , as is p rov ided for und er th e B IA ’s stre am linin g re gul ation s. 8 C .F.R . § 1003.1(a) (7) (2004) . This i ssue is disposed of by t his Court ’s rec ent opini on in Dia v. Ash croft , which uphel d the val idit y of t he str eamlini ng regulations. 353 F.3d 228, 234 ( 3d Cir. 2003) (en banc). In accordance with Dia , when the BIA summaril y affirms a decis ion of an IJ, we must look to t he reasoni ng employe d by t he IJ i n our revi ew of that r uling. Dia, 353 F.3d at 244. We cannot, therefore, accept Douglas ’s invi tati on to examine t he BIA’s decisi on for abuse of di scret ion.

In revi ewing an IJ’ s decis ion, we maynot substitut e our own inter pretation of the fact s, but

must affi rm the IJ ’s fi ndings i f they are supported by

“substantial4

evidence, ” such that

“a reasona

ble fact finder c ould make such a det erminat ion.” Id. at 249
. “Substantial evidence is more than a mere scinti lla and is such rel evant evidence as a reasonabl e mind might ac cept as a dequate t o support a conclusi on.” Senathir

ajah v. INS, 157 F .3d 210, 21 6 (3d C ir. 1998) (internal quo tations and citation om itted).

Douglas’s cont entions boil down to a di spute over the int erpret ation of

the facts. He claims the government di d not pres ent adequat e proof that his marriage was entere d into for

immigrat ion purpose s, and t hat the IJ err ed in fi nding that the government had pro ven its ca se b y a pre pon der anc e of the e vid enc e. 8 U .S.C . § 11 86a (c)(3 )(D ). A review of the record, however, est ablis hes that the IJ ’s deci sion i s support ed by substantial e vidence i ndicat ing that Douglas’s marriage was not ge nuine. Douglas’s story i s plagued by inconsist encies, as well as some outright l ies. Do uglas adm itted to the IJ that h e and his w ife lied d uring the 19 97 IN S interv iew in order t o cover up the dissolution of t heir marriage. He testi fied that he and hi s wife had separat ed in mid-1996, before the inte rview but af ter t heir j oint appl icat ion to r emove the conditions o n his residency status. W hen she filed for divo rce in 1997 , howe ver, Douglas’s wife indicated that she and Douglas had been separ ated si nce 1995. She di d not appear to testi fy on his behalf in front of t he IJ. In fact, alt

hough the IJ gave him extra time to procure impartial witness es, such as the pastor

of the chur ch he and his wif e supposedl y at

tended t ogether, Douglas was onlyable t o present two witnesse s to hi s marri age – a chil dhood friend and his ni ece.5

Neither wit

ness pres ented det aile d or speci fic i nformati on about the marriage , and gi ven their lack of i mpartia lit

y, the IJreasonabl y acc orded their tes timony lit tle wei ght. The additional letters Do uglas prod uced fro m acq uaintances o nly comprom ised his story further , si nce they

indicated that the c ouple was li ving toget her unti l mid-1997, an assertion that

Douglas admitt ed was untrue. Given this evidence, it was r easonable for the I J to hol d that t he government had carried its bu rden of p roof by dem onstrating that D ouglas an d his wife were separat ed, and had l ied under oath about t heir r elat ionshi p in the 1997 intervi ew with the INS. Having admitted the se li es, Douglas ’s cre dibil ity was calle d into ques tion, and he fail ed to provi de any e vidence t o rebut t he government’ s content ion that his marr iage had been for the purp ose o f secu ring an imm igration bene fit. III. For the r easons set

forth above , we will affirm t he BIA’s finalorder of
remo val.