2008 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 5-20-2008 

# T sion ara s v . Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-2412

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and 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 ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " T sion ar as v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1190. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1190NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 07- 2412 CH RI STO S TSI O N A RA S, Pet i t i oner

v. ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 44- 164- 880) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e H enryS. D ogi n Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M A Y 7, 2008 B efor e: B A R R Y , SM I T H A N D H A R D I M A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( fi l ed: M ay20, 2008 )

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM C hr i s t os T s i onar as pet i t i ons forr evi ew of an or derbythe B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) . Forthe fol l ow i ng r eas ons , w e w i l l denythe pet i t i on. T s i onar as , a nat i ve and c i t i zen of G r eec e, ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es i n M ar ch 19882

w i th o u ti n s p e c t i o n . I n F e b ru a r y 1 9 9 3 , T s i o n a r a s m a rr i e d a U . S . c i t i z e n , K i m b e r l y K i rb y, and as a r es ul tbeca m e a c ondi t i onal l aw ful perm anentr es i dent . A ft ertheys epar at ed, T s i onar as fi l ed a Pet i t i on t o R emove C ondi t i ons on R es i dence , I - 751, and s oughta w ai ver of the j oi ntfi l i ng r equi r ementunderI N A § 216 bas ed on the pendi ng di vor ce. T he c o u p le’ s d iv o rc e b e c a m e f in a l in 1 9 9 7 , an d in A u g u st 1 9 9 8 , the U n ited S tate s C iti z e n sh ip and Im m i grat i on S ervi ces ( “U S C IS”) denied T si on aras ’ pet i t i on and w ai ver becau se T s i onar as had notpr oved thatthe mar r i age w as bona fi de s i nce ther e w as no d o c u m e n ta tio n o f

a n yc o m b in e d f

in a n c ia l a s s e ts o r l ia b iliti e s . T sio n a ra s w a s p lac e d in to re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s a n d c h a rg e d w ith re m o v a b ili ty b e c a u se h is c o n d iti o n a l p e rm a n e n t re sid e n t sta tu s h a d b e e n ter m in a ted . T sio n a ra s a g a in s oughtt o have the j oi ntfi l i ng r equi r ementw ai ved. A hear i ng w as convene d befor e an Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e (“ IJ” ) in A p ril 1 9 9 9 . A f ter T sio n a ra s te stif

ied a b o u t h is m a rria g e to K i rbyatthe hea r i ng, he then w i thdr ew hi s pet i t i on fora w ai verand i ns t ead s ought , and w as gr ant ed, vol unt arydepartur e. Shor t l ybefor e thathear i ng, T s i onar as had mar r i ed anotherU . S. ci t i zen, T her es a M i l l er , and he de ci ded t o fi l e a mot i on t o r eopen p roc ee d ing s an d a m o ti o n to stayrem o v al ba sed u p o n the s ec o n d m arriage . T h e IJ u ltim a te ly g ra n te d th e m o tio n to re o p e n to a llo w T s io n a ra s to s e e k a d ju s tm e n t o f

s ta tu s . T h e se co n d m arriage to M il ler en d ed in F eb rua ry2 0 0 1 an d U S C IS d eterm ined that h is I 130 pet i t i on had aut om at i cal l ybeen r evoked upon di vor ce. I tdeni ed hi s adj us t m entof s t atus pet i t i on.3

In 2 0 0 5 , U S C IS m o v e d to re o p e n re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s a g a in s t T s io n a ra s . T s i onar as once a gai n pet i t i oned t o r emove hi s condi t i onal r es i dence s t atus . A ft eranother hear i ng on February10, 2006, r egar di ng T s i onar as ’ fi r s tm arr i age, the I J deni ed the r eques tunderI - 751 and furtherconcl uded thatthe mar r i age w as fr audul ent , ent er ed “s ol el yt o obt ai n a gr een c ar d. ” A s i ngl e mem berof the B I A di s m i s s ed the appe al and deni ed Tsi onar as ’ m ot i on t o r emand hi s cas e s o he coul d appl yforan adj us t m entof s t atus b a se d o n a th ird m a rria g e to a U .S . citize n a n d f o r c a n c e llatio n o f

re m o v a l. I n hi s br i ef i n s uppor tof hi s pet i t i on forr evi ew , T s i onar as m ai nt ai ns thathe i s not s eeki ng r evi ew of the deni al of hi s I - 751. R ather , he cl ai m s thathe onl yw ant s the deni al of hi s m ot i on t o r emand r evi ew ed bec aus e the B I A found thathe ent er ed a marr i age f or the purpos e of e vadi ng i m m i gr at i on l aw s , i n vi ol at i on of I N A § 204( c) . T hats ect i on p ro v id e s: N otw i ths t andi ng the pr ovi s i ons of s ubs ect i on ( b) of thi s s ect i on no pet i t i on s hal l be appr oved i f ( 1) the al i en has pr evi ous l ybeen a ccor ded, orhas s oughtt o be ac cor ded, an i m m edi at e r el at i ve orpr efe r ence s t atus as the sp o u se o f

a c iti z e n o f

th e U n ited S tate s o r th e sp o u se o f a n a lien law f

u lly admi t t ed forperm anentr es i dence , byr eas on of a mar r i age de t erm i ned by the A t t orneyG ener al t o have be en ent er ed i nt o forthe purpos e of e vadi ng the i m m i gr at i on l aw s , or( 2) the A t t orneyG ener al has det erm i ned thatthe al i en has att empt ed orcons pi r ed t o ent eri nt o a mar r i age f orthe purpos e of evad i ng the im m i grat i on l aw s. 8 U . S. C . § 1154. T s i onar as ar gues thatthe B I A s houl d have made more expl i ci tfi ndi ngs thathi s act i ons had purpos eful l y“eva d[ed] the i m m i gr at i on l aw s , ” and thati n anyevent th e s ta tu to ry b a r d o e s n o t a p p ly to h im .4

A tthe out s et , the governm entar gues thatw e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the deni al of Tsi onar as ’ m ot i on t o r emand becaus e he i s es s ent i al l ys eeki ng r evi ew of the A t t orney Ge n e r a l ’ s d i s c r e t i o n a r yd e c i s i o n t o d e n yh i s a p p l i c a t i o n f o ra wa i v e ru n d e rI NA § 216( c) ( 4) [8 U . S. C . § 1186a( c) ( 4) ] . T o the ext entthatT s i onar as s eeks t o go behi nd t he deni al of the w ai verand exa m i ne the evi dence pr es ent ed t o the I J on the deni al of the w ai ver , w e ca nnotdo s o. W e have pr evi ous l ys t at ed thatw e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew su c h d isc re tio n a ryd e c isio n s u n d e r IN A § 2 1 6 (c )(4 ) in v o lv in g w h a t ev id e n c e is c re d ib le and the w ei ghtt o be gi ven thatevi dence . See U r ena- T avar ez v. A s hcr oft , 367 F. 3d 154, 1 6 0 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 4 ) . Wh e r e we l a c k j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rth e BI A’ s d e n i a l o f th e wa i v e r , we w o u ld a ls o la c k ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w th e B IA ’s d e n ia l o f h is m o tio n to re m a n d to th e IJ . See M art i nez- M al donado v. G onzal es , 437 F. 3d 679, 683 ( 7th C i r . 2006) ( “[W ] e l ack ju risd ictio n o v e r m o tio n s to re o p e n a n d re c o n sid e r in c a se s w h e re w e lac k ju risd ictio n to re v iew th e u n d e rly in g o rd e r” ); A ss a a d v . A sh c ro f t, 37 8 F .3 d 4 7 1 , 4 7 5 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ) (if co u rtlack s au tho ri tyto rev iew d ir ec t petit ion , co u rtlack s jurisdicti o n to rev iew B IA ’s d e n ia l o f m o tio n to re o p e n ). H o w e v e r, ita lso a p p e a rs th a t T sio n a ra s s e e k s o u r re v iew o f th e B IA ’s d e n ial o f

h is m ot i on t o r emand on t he gr ound thatthe B I A s houl d nothave appl i ed the s t atut orybar underI N A § 204( c) t o hi m . I n otherw or ds , he has r ai s ed a que s t i on of l aw w hethert he B I A appl i ed the corr ectl egal s t andar d i n adj udi cat i ng hi s cl ai m . See N g v. A t t orney G en era l of

the U n it ed S tat es, 43 6 F . 3 d 3 9 2 , 3 9 4 -95 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) (un d er the R E A L ID5

A ct , court s r et ai n j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew “cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s orques t i ons of l aw ” under 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )(2 )(D )). T o th e e x ten t th a t T sio n a ra s ra ise s th is n a rro w a n d d isc re te cl ai m , w e w i l l r evi ew i tbuthol d t hatthe B I A corr ect l yappl i ed the s t atut orybarunder IN A § 2 0 4 (c). F o r sta n d a rd o f

re v iew p u rp o se s, a m o tio n to re m a n d is tre a ted a s a m o tio n to r eopen w her e the mot i on has been f i l ed w hi l e the appe al i s pendi ng. See K orytnyuk v. A sh cro ft, 3 9 6 F . 3 d 2 7 2 , 2 8 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). T h e B IA m ayd en ya m o ti o n to reo p en w h ere the pet i t i onerhas fai l ed t o es t abl i s h a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e forthe r el i ef s ought . I d. at282- 83 (c iti n g S e v o ian v . A sh c ro f t, 29 0 F .3 d 1 6 6 , 1 6 9 -7 0 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 )). H e re , alth o u g h it n e v e re x p l i c i t l ys a i d s o , th e B I A a p p e a r s t o h a v e d e n i e d th e m o t i o n o n th i s g r o u n d . We cons i derw hetherthe fi ndi ngs of fa ctar e s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence and r evi ew t he ul t i m at e deni al of the mot i on foran abus e of di s cr et i on. See Sevoi an, 290 F. 3d at174. U nderthe s ubs t ant i al evi dence s t andar d, w e uphol d fac tual fi ndi ngs i f theyar e “s uppor t ed byr eas onabl e, s ubs t ant i al , and pr obat i ve evi dence on the r ecor d cons i der ed as a w hol e. ” T arr aw al l yv. A s hcr oft , 338 F. 3d 180, 184 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . W e w i l l uphol d the deni al of the mot i on unl es s i ti s arbi tr ary , i r r at i onal , orcontr aryt o l aw . See G uo v. A s hcr oft , 386 F .3 d 5 5 6 , 5 6 2 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). T he B I A r evi ew ed the r ecor d and conc l uded thatT s i onar as had notes t abl i s hed the b o n a f id e s o f h is f irst m a rria g e . In p a rticu lar , itf o u n d th e re c o rd d id n o t sh o w a n in ten t to est abli sh a l i fe t og ether, i ncludi ng j ointpropertyl eases, i nco m e t ax fo rm s, ban k acco un t s,6

a p eriod o f c o u rt sh ip, t esti m o n yo f m u tual ex p erien ce s, an d a sh are d li fe . Ind ee d , the IJ had found the l ack of

document at i on of s har ed expe r i ence s verys i gni fi cantas r efl ect i ng the i nt entof the part i es w ho had ent er ed i nt o the mar r i age. T s i onar as ar gues thatthi s l ack of document at i on i s nots uffi ci entt o s uppor ta fi ndi ng of fr aud. B utthati s notal l thatt he IJ c o n sid e re d in m a k in g th a t f in d in g ; th e IJ a lso c o n sid e re d T sio n a ra s’ c re d ib ili ty pr obl ems. T s i onar as ’ t es t i m onyconce rni ng w her e he l i ved atcert ai n t i m es contr adi ct ed h is a n sw e rs in a p re v io u slyf iled g re e n c a rd a p p lica tio n ; h e p ro v id e d in c o n sis ten t d a tes to the i m m i gr at i on author i t i es on exac t l yw hen hi s m arr i age pr obl ems bega n; he admi t t ed th a t h e d id n o t k n o w h is w if e h a d a se c o n d jo b ; an d h e w a s u n f a m ili a r w ith h o w h is w i fe’ s s on w as car ed forw hen s he w or ked al l ni ght . T he fi ndi ng thatT s i onar as had ent er ed the mar r i age t o obt ai n a gr een c ar d i s s uppor t ed byr eas onabl e, s ubs t ant i al and pr obat i ve evi dence . See Tar r aw al l y , 338 F. 3d at184. N o r eas onabl e fa ctfi nderw oul d be c o m p e lle d to d is tu rb th e f in d in g th a t th e m a rr ia g e w a s n o t e n te re d in to in g o o d f a ith . S e e IN A § 2 4 2 (b )( 4 )( B ) [ 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (b )( 4 )( B )] . A ccordi ng l y , T si on aras ’ I -130 p et i t i on w as not pr i m a facie approvab l e beca use I N A § 204( c) pr ohi bi t s appr oval s of pet i t i ons byfor ei gn nat i onal s w ho have be en det erm i ned bythe A t t orneyG ener al t o have e nt er ed i nt o a mar r i age f orthe purpos e of evadi ng the i m m i gr at i on l aw s . C ons i der i ng the above l ack of document at i on and T sion ara s’ ow n test im o n y , T sion ara s w as n o t el igible as a b en ef ici aryo f h is th ir d w ife’s I - 130 beca us e he e nt er ed i nt o hi s fi r s tm arr i age t o evade i m m i gr at i on l aw s . See al s o 8C . F. R . § 204. 2( a) ( 1) ( i i ) ( D i r ect orw i l l denya pet i t i on fi l ed on beha l f of a nyal i en for

w h o m th e re is s u b sta n tial a n d p ro b a tiv e e v id e n c e o f a n a ttem p t o r c o n sp ira c yto e n ter in to a mar r i age t o evade i m m i gr at i on l aw s ) . T he B I A di d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng th e m o tio n to re m a n d s in c e T s io n a ra s ’ I -1 3 0 w a s n o t a p p ro v a b le . We wi l l d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.