2004 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 3-29-2004 

# Jua r e z 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 . 03-1740

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : 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 a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no va U niv e 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 a t or of V i l l a no va U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t 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 a t ion
" Jua r ez v . Att y Ge n U SA" (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 906. 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_2004/906NOT PRE CEDENT IAL IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

_______________ No. 03-1740

________________ NESTOR JUAREZ, Petit ioner
v. JOH N A SHC ROF T, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent

____________________________________ On Petiti on for Review of an Order of t he Bo ard o f Imm igration Ap peals (INS No. A43-664-898)

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

March 26, 2004 Befo re : AMBRO, CHERTOFF a nd BECKE R,

Circuit Judges (Fil ed March 29, 2004)

_______________________

OPI NION

_______________________ BE CK ER , Circuit

Judge. Thi s i s ape ti ti on f

orre vi ew b y Nes to r J ua re z. For th e r ea so ns th at

fo ll ow, we deny t he peti tion. Because the parties are ful ly famili ar with t he background fact s and2

procedu ral history, we need n ot set them fo rth, and limit our discus sion to our ratio decid endi. First, the governm ent conten ds that the C ourt lacks jurisdiction ov er Juarez’s chall enge to the INS Distri ct Direc tor’ s decis ion because the Immigr ation J udge (“IJ ”) explic itl y st ated that her de cisi on was not based on petiti oner’s i ntervi ew with the INS or on th e reaso ns state d in the INS Distric t Direc tor’s de cision. W e w ill not be labor th is point. The government is correct about the tenor of t

he IJ’s stat ement, which was t hat “[t]he basis of

the Court’ s decis ion . . . is not in any way infl uenced by the cont ents of t he denial letter provided by the District Director. ” The IJ then proceeded to decide the case based on the remaining t esti mony and documentar y evi dence that

was before the Immigrat ion Court. Because the I J did not adopt the Distri ct Direc tor’ s decis ion, t hat decisi on is not

before the Court. Juarez’ s att acks on the pr ocedures us ed by Offic er Zanotti when she interviewed him and Ms. Brantl ey, and his cl aims that the char ging docum ent wa s “improp erly issued,” were no t raised before th e IJ and are the refore waived. The princi pal question on appeal , as we see i t, i s whether subs tanti al evi dence supports the Board and the IJ’s decisi ons deny ing the pe tition to waive the condi tion for Juarez’ s admissi on as a lawful permanent r esident . The his toryof the put ative marita l relat ion ship betw een Jua rez a nd B ran tley is ju mb led. C ritica l, ho we ver , are s eve ral f acts . First, Juarez admits that from 1993 to 1996 he and B rantleyfiled separate t ax returns,3

each claiming “Head of H ousehold” status from different addresses. While the r eturns were lat er amended, i t was permis sibl e for the IJ to dr aw the infer ence from the numer ous separate fil ings that thecouple were i n fact not livi ng togethe r. Thei r later corr ecti on of the ta x records does not compel the concl usion that the y act ually lived together f

rom 1993 to 1996, when they filed the separat e returns. Second, there was si gnific antly inconsi stent testimony by

Juarez and Bra ntley

about the number and lengt hs of thei r separ ation( s), and about where they r esided at differe nt ti mes. In our view, the IJ was entitl ed to: ( 1) make an adverse c redibi lit

y j udgment about t

he bona fides of the Juarez-Brant ley marriage ; (2) conclude that “the marria ge was entere d into for immigration purpose s only ”; (3) deny Juarez’ s peti tion t o remove the condi tion; and (4) or der him removed t o Peru. Juarez rem onstrates at great leng th that the decisions o f the D istrict Director, Immigrat ion Judge, and Board of Immigration Appeals were i mpermissi bly based upon racia l and ethnic profi ling and, thus, were discriminat ory in nature. We find utterlyno basis i n the rec ord for these cla ims; for the cl aim that

the INS att orney was confused; for th e cl ai m th atth e Sp ani sh l ang uag e i nt erpr et erwas i nco mpetent ; o r f oranyot her

cl ai ms of procedural irregulari ties. The petition for r eview will be denied.