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

R A, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 13-72017 Age n c y No. A096-025-434 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

June 10, 2016 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : R AW LINSON, a

n d B EA, C irc u it Judge s, a

nd SEEB OR G, *** Distric t Judge . Eve ly

n M angue rra

pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m i gra tion Appe a ls (“ B IA” )’ s dism i ssa l of he r a ppe a l of a n im m igration judge (“ IJ” )’ s de c ision



# FIL ED JAN 09 2017 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 9th C ir. R . 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 R ic ha rd Se e borg, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion.de ny ing he r a pplic a tion for c anc e lla

tion of re m ova l. W e de ny the pe tition for re vie w. The B IA and IJ prope rly

de te rm ine d tha

t be c a u se M angue rra

ha d e nte re d the Unite d State s using a

pa ssport a

nd visa be longing to som e one e lse in 1992, she

ha d proc ure d he r e n t

ry by fra ud a n d the re fore wa s ina dm issiblea t the tim e she a pplie d for a d justm e nt to la

wful pe rm ane nt re side nt sta tus from 2002 to 2004. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1182(a )(6)(C )(i). Thus, whe n M angue rra a pplie d for a djustm e nt to la wful pe rm ane nt re side nt sta

t us, she wa s re quire d

to subm it a

n a pplic a tion for wa ive r of ina d m issibility , de m onstra

ting tha t the re fusa l of he r a dm ission to the Unite d State s

“ would re sult in e xtre m e ha rdship” to he r Unite d State s c itiz e n spouse . Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1182(i). M angue rra fa ile d to a

pply for suc h a

wa ive r. Inste a d , she m isre pre se nte d how she ha d e nte re d the Unite d State s in 1992 on her a pplic a tion to a djust sta tus to la wful pe rm a

ne nt re side nt. Ac c ordingly , the B IA prope rly de te rm i ne d tha

t she ha d not be e n la

wfully a dm itte d for pe rm an e nt re side nc e and wa s ine ligiblefor c anc e lla tion of re m o va l for la

wful pe rm ane nt re side nts. Se e Se gura v . Holde r , 605 F.3d 1063, 1067 (9th C ir. 2010) (a n a lie n who ha s a c quire d pe rm ane nt re side nt sta

t us in e rror or through fra

ud ha s not be e n la

wfully a dm itte d for pe rm ane nt re side n c e ).

2First, M angue rra argue s tha

t the B IA e rre d by

holding tha

t she wa s ine ligible for c a nc e lla tion of re m ova l be c a

use she wa s e ligible for a disc re tiona

ry fra ud wa ive r. M angue rra

argue s tha

t if she we re grante d a

fra ud wa ive r a s to he r 1992 e ntra nc e into theUnite d State s, she the n would be c om e sta tutorily e l igible for c anc e lla tion of re m ova l b y

a pply ing to wa ive the a l ie n sm uggling offe nse she a tte m pte d to c om

m i t in 2006. Tha

t se c ond wa ive r would c le ar he r la wful pe rm ane nt re side nt sta

t us of a ll ille ga lity . Ne ithe r the Im

m igration a

nd Na tiona lity Ac t

nor the gove rning re gula tions gran t a n IJ the a u thority to a llow a

n a lie n to a pply for nunc pro tunc re l ie f. Se e Matte r of Garc ia-Linare

s , 21 I& N De c . 254, 257 (B IA 1996). Howe ve r, the re ha s be e n “ a n a dm inistra

tive pra c tic e of gra

nting suc h re lie f in a fe w we ll-de fine d insta nc e s.” Id . (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d). Those two insta nc e s a re : “ (1) whe re the only

ground of deporta

bility or ina dm issibility would the re by be e lim inat e d;” or (2) “ whe re the a lie n would re c e ive a grant of a d justm e nt of sta

tus in c o njunc tion with the

grant of a

ny a ppropria te wa i ve rs of ina dm issibility .” Matte r of Roman , 19 I& N De c . 855, 859 (B IA 1988). He re , e ve n if M angue rra

we re to re c e ive a

wa ive r nunc pro tunc to forgive the fra ud she c o m

m itte d in both 1992 (whe n she e nte re d the Unite d State s using a pa ssport a

nd visa be longing to som

e one e lse ) a

nd 2004 (whe n she m isre pre se nte d 3how she ha d e n te re d the Unite d State s in 1992 on her a pplic ation for a djustm e nt to la wful pe rm ane nt re side nt sta tus), she would re m a in ina dm issible , and thus re m ova ble , be c a use in 2006 she

ha d atte m

pte d to sm

uggle anothe r a lie n, he r brothe r, into theUnite d Stat e s— a ground of ina dm issibility tha t c a nnot be wa ive d. The IJ c a nnot sim ply grant a nunc pro tunc sta

nd-a lone wa ive r without a djudic a ting a

n atte nda nt a pplic a tion for a djustm e n t of sta tus. B e c a u se M angue rra c om m itte d fra ud in obta ining he r la

wful pe rm ane n t re side nt sta tus in 2004, he

r sta tus wa s “ void a

b initio.” Se e K

y ong Ho Shin v . Holde r , 607 F.3d 1213, 1217 (9th C ir. 2010) (“ [A] ll gra nts of [la wful pe rm ane nt re side nt] sta tus tha t we re not in substa ntive c om plia nc e with the im

m igrat ion la

ws” are “ void a

b initio.” ). M an gue rra

c annot re s tore he r la

wful pe rm ane nt re side nt sta tus without re a

pply ing for a d justm e nt of sta

tus in c onjunc tion with the ne c e ssa ry wa ive r(s) of ina d m issibility . B e c a

use the 2006 a l ie n sm

u ggling ground of ina

dm issibility c annot be wa ive d , she is ine ligible for a djustm e nt of sta tus. Se c ond, M a

ngue rra argue s tha

t the IJ a buse d he r disc re t ion in de ny ing he r re que s t for a

c o ntinua nc e to re se arc h the pote ntia l a va i la bility of a nunc pro tunc fraud wa ive r, the re fore de p riving he r of due proc e ss in he r re m o va l proc e e dings.

4This a rgum e nt fa i ls. As e xpla ine d a bove , M angue rra

wa s not e l igible for a nunc pro tunc fra

ud wa ive r. B e c a

use the re wa s no re lie f a va ila b le to M angue rra , a c ontinua nc e would ha

v e be e n to no a

va il. M ore ove r, M an g ue rra ’ s c onduc t wa s not re a sona ble . Se e Ahme d v . Holde r , 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th C ir. 2009) (c o urt c onside rs the re a sona ble ne ss of the a lie n’ s c onduc t, a

m ong othe r fa c tors, in de te rm ining whe the r an IJ’ s de nia l of a c ontinua nc e wa s a n a buse of disc re tion). The issue of M angue rra ’ s im prope r a djustm e nt c am e up for the first tim e during them e rits he aring be c a use M angue rra pe rsiste d in m aking m isle a ding sta te m e nts re ga

rding how shee nte re d the Unite d Sta t e s in 1992. Any

c onfusion re ga

rding he r e ligibility for a

fra ud wa ive r wa s due to he r own la c k

of c andor. Fina lly , whe n the IJ de nie d the re que st, she sta te d, “ [I] f y ou find a

nything ne w tha t I’ m not a ware of, I’ ll be ha

ppy to look a t a m otion to re ope n, y ou know, if y ou’ ve got som e ba c kground inform a tion tha t sa y s tha t she would be e ligiblefor nunc pro tunc on a

212(i).” The IJ’ s de nia l of the m otion to c ontinue , the re fore , did not pre v e nt M a

n gue rra ’ s c ounse l from

c onduc ting furthe r re s e arc h re ga rding whe the r M angue rra

wa s e ligiblefor a

fra ud wa v ie r or from

obta ining ne w e vide nc e . PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE W DE NIE D. 5