14-1078

Principe v. Holder

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED

ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE

PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A

DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN

ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST

SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals

2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United

3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,

on the 11th 4 day of March, two thousand fifteen.

5

6 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,

7 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,

8 Circuit Judges,

9 PAMELA K. CHEN,

District Judge.* 10

11

12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

13 DORIS PRINCIPE, 

14 Petitioner-Appellant,

15

16 -v.- 14-1078

17

18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES

19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

20 Respondent-Appellee.

21 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

22

23 FOR PETITIONER: ROBERT C. ROSS, West Haven, CT.

24

* The Honorable Pamela K. Chen, United States District

Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by

designation.
1 FOR RESPONDENT: NANCY E. FRIEDMAN (with Joyce R.

2 Branda and Kevin J. Conway, on the

3 brief), Office of Immigration

4 Litigation, Civil Division, United

5 States Department of Justice,

6 Washington, DC.

7

8 Petition for review of a final order of removal issued

9 by the Board of Immigration Appeals.

10

11 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED

12 AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. 

13

14 Petitioner Doris Principe challenges the final order of

15 removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)

16 in which it dismissed an appeal from the decision of

17 Immigration Judge Michael W. Straus, denying her application

18 for adjustment of status under Immigration and Nationality

19 Act § 245(i). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the

20 underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues

21 presented for review.

22

23 As the immigration judge recognized, the issue before

24 the agency was whether Principe was a “grandfathered” alien. 

25 An alien has such status if a petition was filed on her

26 behalf that was “approvable when filed.” See Butt v.

27 Gonzales, 500 F.3d 130, 134 (2d Cir. 2007). A petition is

28 “approvable when filed” if it was “properly filed,”

29 “meritorious in fact” and “non-frivolous.” 8 C.F.R.

30 § 245.10(a)(3). In this case, the petition at issue was

31 based on Principe’s then-marriage. Therefore, Principe must

32 show that the marriage was “bona fide. It is not enough to

33 show merely that a marriage existed.” Linares Huarcaya v.

34 Mukasey, 550 F.3d 224, 227 (2d Cir. 2008) (internal

35 quotation marks and citation omitted). In other words,

36 Principe was required to show that the petition was “based

37 on a genuine marriage in which the parties intended to share

38 a life as husband and wife, not a marriage of convenience

39 designed solely to confer an immigration benefit on one of

40 the parties.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

41

42 The record supports the agency’s findings of fact, and

43 certainly does not compel a contrary conclusion. 

44 Accordingly, we find no error in the agency’s determination

45 that Principe is not a “grandfathered” alien. See 8 U.S.C.

46 § 1252(b)(4)(B) (“the administrative findings of fact are

2
1 conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be

2 compelled to conclude to the contrary”).

3

4 For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in

5 Principe’s other arguments, we hereby DENY the petition for

6 review.

7

8 FOR THE COURT:

9 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK

10

3