United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-60364

Summary Calendar

Raksmey Yin, 

Petitioner,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A200 362 667

Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Raksmey Yin, a native and citizen of Cambodia, petitions for review 

of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing her appeal 

of the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of her petition to remove conditions on 

her permanent resident status. Yin contends that the BIA incorrectly 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 22, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-60364 Document: 00516441995 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/22/2022
No. 21-60364

2

determined that she had the burden of demonstrating that she entered into 

her qualifying marriage in good faith and applied the wrong legal standard. 

We review the BIA’s decision and consider the IJ’s decision only to 

the extent it influenced the BIA. Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th 

Cir. 2018). We lack jurisdiction to review the factual findings relevant to the 

purely discretionary decision whether to grant a waiver. See Patel v. Garland, 

142 S. Ct. 1614, 1622-27 (2022). Legal determinations are reviewed de novo. 

Tibakweitira v. Wilkinson, 986 F.3d 905, 910 (5th Cir. 2021). 

An alien may obtain permanent resident status on a conditional basis 

by marrying a U.S. citizen. 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(a)(1). The conditional basis of 

that status may be removed, making the alien a lawful permanent resident, if 

the alien and the citizen spouse jointly file a petition during the 90-day period 

preceding the two-year anniversary of the grant of conditional status. 

§ 1186a(c)(1)(A) and (d)(2)(A). However, if the alien and the citizen spouse 

separate within the first two years of marriage, the alien may file a petition 

and seek a waiver of the joint filing requirement by demonstrating that “the 

qualifying marriage was entered into in good faith by the alien spouse, but the 

qualifying marriage has been terminated (other than through the death of the 

spouse) and the alien was not at fault in failing to meet the requirements of 

[§ 1186a(c)(1)(A)].” § 1186a(c)(4)(B). While the decision whether to grant 

or deny a waiver of the joint filing requirement is discretionary and 

unreviewable, “the ‘predicate legal question of whether the IJ properly 

applied the law to the facts in determining the alien’s eligibility for 

discretionary relief’ is a question of law properly raised in a petition for 

review.” Alvarado de Rodriguez v. Holder, 585 F.3d 227, 234 (5th Cir. 2009) 

(quoting Nguyen v. Mukasey, 522 F.3d 853, 855 (8th Cir. 2008)). While Yin 

argues that the BIA incorrectly determined that she had the burden of 

demonstrating that she entered into her qualifying marriage in good faith, 

§ 1186a explicitly provides that an alien unable to meet the joint filing 

Case: 21-60364 Document: 00516441995 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/22/2022
No. 21-60364

3

requirements may have the conditional basis of her permanent resident status

removed “if the alien demonstrates that” certain requirements are met. 

§ 1186a(c)(4); see 8 CFR § 1216.5(a)(1). Moreover, we have recognized that 

to be eligible for a waiver of the joint filing requirements, the petitioner must 

demonstrate that the qualifying marriage was entered into in good faith. 

Alvarado de Rodriguez, 585 F.3d at 230. Accordingly, the BIA did not err in 

determining that Yin had the burden of demonstrating that she entered into 

her qualifying marriage in good faith. 

Contrary to Yin’s contention, “[t]he conduct of the parties after 

marriage is relevant to their intent at the time of marriage.” Matter of 

Laureano, 19 I. & N. Dec. 1, 3 (BIA 1983). “In considering whether an alien 

entered into a qualifying marriage in good faith,” one must “consider 

evidence relating to the amount of commitment by both parties to the marital 

relationship.” § 1216.5(e)(2). In this case, the IJ found that Yin failed to 

demonstrate that she entered into her qualifying marriage in good faith 

because months after receiving her conditional residential status she entered 

into a romantic relationship with her current husband. Specifically, the IJ 

noted that she was listed on a residential lease with her second husband 

shortly after receiving her conditional resident status; that she identified her 

second husband’s parents’ home as her residence after being arrested; and 

that shortly after separating from her initial husband, she traveled to 

Cambodia with her new husband. In light of the foregoing, the BIA did not 

err in concluding that Yin was ineligible for a good-faith marriage waiver 

because she failed to provide legally sufficient evidence to establish that her 

qualifying marriage was entered into in good faith. See § 1186a(c)(4)(B).

Based upon the foregoing, the petition for review is DENIED. 

Case: 21-60364 Document: 00516441995 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/22/2022