14-1078 Principe v. Holder



### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS **FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT**



## SUMMARY ORDER

**R ULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT**  **. C**  **ITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER**  **J ANUARY**  **1, 2007,**  **IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY F**  **EDERAL R** **ULE OF A** **PPELLATE P**  **ROCEDURE 32.1**  **AND THIS COURT ’**  **S L**  **OCAL R** **ULE 32.1.1.**  **W HEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A**  **DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT ,**  **A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE F**  **EDERAL A** **PPENDIX 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**  **. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals**  1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United** 2 **States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,** 3 **on the 11 th** **day of March, two thousand fifteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,** 6 **RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,** 7 **Circuit Judges ,**  8 **PAMELA K. CHEN,** 9 **District Judge**

**.** ***** 10 11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 12 **DORIS PRINCIPE,** 13 **Petitioner-Appellant ,**  14 15 **-v.- 14-1078** 16 17 **ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES** 18 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 **Respondent-Appellee**

**.** 20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER:** ROBERT C. ROSS, West Haven, CT. 23 24

* The Honorable Pamela K. Chen, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.**FOR RESPONDENT:** NANCY E. FRIEDMAN (withJoyce R. 1 Branda and Kevin J. Conway, on the 2 brief ), Office of Immigration 3 Litigation, Civil Division, United 4 States Department of Justice, 5 Washington, DC. 6 7 Petition for review of a final order of removal issued 8 by the Board of Immigration Appeals. 9 10 **UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED** 11 **AND DECREED**that the petition for review is **DENIED**

. 12 13 Petitioner Doris Principe challenges the final order of 14 removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) 15 in which it dismissed an appeal from the decision of 16 Immigration Judge Michael W. Straus, denying her application 17 for adjustment of status under Immigration and Nationality 18 Act § 245(i)

. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 19 underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues 20 presented for review. 21 22 As the immigration judge recognized, the issue before 23 the agency was whether Principe was a “grandfathered” alien. 24 An alien has such status if a petition was filed on her 25 behalf that was “approvable when filed.” See Butt v. 26 Gonzales , 500 F.3d 130, 134 (2d Cir. 2007). A petition is 27 “approvable when filed” if it was “properly filed,” 28 “meritorious in fact” and “non-frivolous.” 8 C.F.R. 29 § 245.10(a)(3). In this case, the petition at issue was 30 based on Principe’s then-marriage. Therefore, Principe must 31 show that the marriage was “bona fide. It is not enough to 32 show merely that a marriage existed.” Linares Huarcaya v. 33 Mukasey , 550 F.3d 224, 227 (2d Cir. 2008) (internal 34 quotation marks and citation omitted). In other words, 35 Principe was required to show that the petition was “based 36 on a genuine marriage in which the parties intended to share 37 a life as husband and wife, not a marriage of convenience 38 designed solely to confer an immigration benefit on one of 39 the parties.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 40 41 The record supports the agency’s findings of fact, and 42 certainly does not compel a contrary conclusion. 43 Accordingly, we find no error in the agency’s determination 44 that Principe is not a “grandfathered” alien. See 8 U.S.C. 45 § 1252(b)(4)(B) (“the administrative findings of fact are 46

2conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be 1 compelled to conclude to the contrary”). 2 3 For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in 4 Principe’s other arguments, we hereby **DENY** the petition for 5 review. 6 7 FOR THE COURT: 8 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK 9 10

3