NOT RECOMMENDED F OR F ULL-TEXT PUBLICATION F ile Nam e: 13a0082n.06 No. 12-3070 UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS F OR THE S IXTH CIRCUIT

ERNEST ADU-A DJ EI , Petitioner,

v. ERI C H. HOL DER, J R., Attorney Gene ral, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON PETI TI ON FOR REVI EW OF A FI NAL ORDER OF THE BOARD OF I MMI GRATI ON APPEAL S

BEF ORE: SI L ER, GRI FF I N, and STRANCH, Circuit J udg es. GRI FF I N, Circuit J udg e. P et i t i o n er E rnest Adu-Adje i, a native and citizen of Ghana , seeks revie w of the Boa rd of I mmigra tion Appeals’ ( “B oard” ) dec ision affirming an immigra tion judg e’s (“I J ”) remova l or der. Be cause substantial ev i d en ce supports the I J ’s finding that Adu-Adje i enter ed into a fra udulent marria g e in order to obtain perma nent residenc y in the United States, we deny his petition for revie w.

I

. A. Ernest Adu- Adjei enter ed the United States in Septembe r 2003 pursua nt to a student visa. Fr iends introduced him to Charl ay Ba y in late April 2006, and the two marrie d a wee k later, onNo. 12-3070

Adu-Adjei v . Holder May 5, 2006. Three wee ks into the marriag e, Adu-Adje i applied to adjust his immigra tion status based on a

n immigra

nt visa petition Bay

filed conc urre ntly

on his behalf. Severa l months later, Ba y and Adu-Adje i appea

red befor e Citi zen s h i p and I mmigra tion Service s (“CI S”) for an interview in connec tion with Ba y ’s visa petition. During an interview with District Adjudication Offic er Allan Shaub, Ba y admitted that h er marria g e to Adu-Adje i was not “re al” a nd that she had be en paid to mar ry and help him obtain per

manent re sidency

in the United States. Shaub notified J ulie Hetzel, a CI S fra ud and national secur ity office r, who briefly spoke with Ba y befor e contac ting I mmigra tion and Customs Enforc ement Senior Special Ag ent Kenne th Teich. Teich interviewe d Ba

y and Ad u-Adjei separ ately

. Ba y ag ain confe ssed that she had been paid t o marry Adu-Adje i and help him obtain perma nent reside n cy . Teich then interviewe d AduAdjei, who denied that the marria g e was a fra ud. Acc ording to Teich, Adu-Adje i’s story of how the two met was “painf

ul to listen to” and in no way matched what Ba y h ad told him ear lier. When Teich said that Ba

y had al rea dy confe ssed and sug g ested that Adu-Adje i be truthful, Adu-Adje i reque sted a lawy er. The interview promptly ended. Teich arr ested Ad u -A d j ei and filed a repor

t documenting the interview(F orm I -213). B ay formally withdrew he r visa petition. C I S d enied Adu-Adje i’s adjustment application beca use an immigra

nt visa was n o t immediately

available to him, Bay

having the same da

y withdrawn he r visa petition. B. The Depa rtment of Homeland Security (“D HS”) initiated remova l proce eding s ag ainst AduAdjei, char g ing him as remova ble on the g round that he was inadmissible at the time he tried to

- 2 -No. 12-3070

Adu-Adjei v . Holder adjust his status, see 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a) (1)( A); he was alleg edly inadmissible becaus e h e t ri ed to procur e an immig rant visa by fra ud, see id. § 1182(a) (6)( C)(i). I n J uly 2007, Adu-Adje i appea red be fore an immigr ation judge for an initial hear ing. The I J continued the matter afte r Adu-Adje i said he neede d time to reta in an attorney

. The I J advised that he would ask Adu-Adje i at t h e n ex t hear ing to admit or deny DHS’s alleg ations. Adu-Adje i appea red ag ain befor e the I J three months later, this time with counsel. His at t orney soug ht a continuance beca

use she was unprepa

red to admit or deny the alleg ations, Adu-Adje i having hired her just the day befor e. The I J admonished Adu-Adje i for his delay , but never theless g rante d a one

wee k continuance

. At the next hear ing, Adu-Adje i admitted some of the fac tual alleg ations, denied others, and de nied the re movability char g e. One y ear later, the parties appea red for an evidentiar

y hear ing. DHS counsel indicated that he would offe r into evidenc e Special Ag ent Teich’ s For m I -213 and Ba

y ’s written withdrawa l of her visa petition. Adu-Adje i’s counsel objected to the admission of any o f Ba y ’s hear say statements contained in the two documents. Citi ng Dallo v. INS , 765 F.2d 581 (6th Cir. 1985), counsel arg ued that hear say is inadmissible in remova l proce eding s unless DHS can show that, despite its rea sonable eff orts, it is unable to locate the decla rant for cross-e x amination. Counsel asser ted that DHS had made no eff

orts to secur e Ba

y ’s in-court testimony

. DHS counsel responde d that his notes indicated that the colleag

ue who prepa

red the file had trie d to contact B ay , but was unsucc essful. When the I J mentioned that he would later have to make a finding reg arding the g overnme nt’s eff orts to obtain Ba y ’s testimony befor e it would admit and consider her hear say statements, DHS counsel asked for

- 3 -No. 12-3070

Adu-Adjei v . Holder

a continuance to try aga i n t o o b t ain Ba y ’s t estimony or have the colleag ue (who was then absent) testify reg arding her eff

orts to locate Ba

y . The I J continued the hear ing over Adu-Adje i’s objection. I n May 2009, Ba

y , Offic er Shaub, Special Ag ent Teich, and Adu-Ad jei testified at an evidentiar y hear ing. After hear ing the testimony , the I J sustained the remova bility char g e, finding by clea r and convincing evidenc e that Adu-Adje i enter ed into a fr au d ulent marria g e in order to

s ecur e an immigra

nt visa. He found Ba

y , Teich, and Shaub cre dible and deeme d Adu- Ad j ei ’s testimony “unconvinc ing.” Adu-Adje i was order ed remove d to Ghana

. The Boa rd upheld the I J ’s decision. This timely petition for revie w followed. W e s t ay ed Adu-Adje i’s remova l pending a decision on his petition. I I

. When the Boa

rd aff irms an I J ’s decision but adds its own rema rks, as it did here , we revie w both decisions toge ther. Cruz-Samayoa v. Holder , 607 F.3d 1145, 1149 (6th Cir. 2010). We revie w questions of law de novo and consider fac tual finding s using the subs t antial-e vidence standard. Khalil i v. Holder , 557 F.3d 429, 435 (6th Cir. 2009). Under this standard, “administrative finding s of fac t are conclusive unless any rea sonable adjudicator would be compel l ed t o conclude to the contra ry .” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)( 4)(B ); see Singh v. Gonzales, 451 F.3d 400, 403 (6th Cir. 2006); see also Y u v. Ashcroft , 364 F.3d 700, 702 (6th Cir. 2004) (noting that § 125 2 (b)(4)(B ) “basic ally codifies the Supre me Court’s substantial evidenc e standa rd”)

. I I I

. A.

- 4 -No. 12-3070

Adu-Adjei v . Holder Adu-Adje i first challeng es the Boa rd’s finding that he soug ht to procur e an immigra nt visa throug h marria g e fra

ud. The Boa

rd’s finding in this reg ard is one of fac t, so we revi ew it for substantial evidenc e. Fang Huang v. Mukase y , 523 F.3d 640, 649 (6th Cir. 2008). DH S h ad t he b u rd en to prove Adu-Adje i’s remova bility by “cle ar and convincing evidenc e.” 8 U. S

. C

. § 1229a ( c ) ( 3 ) ( A )

. Co mb in in g o u r s u b s ta n ti a l- e v id e n c e r e v iew standard with DHS’s underly ing burden of proof, Adu-Adje i’s task befor e us is to demo n s t ra t e that a rea sonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude that, co n t ra ry to the Board’ s finding , the record does not contain clear and convincing evidenc e that he e ng ag ed in marr iag e fr aud. See Hassan v. Holder , 604 F.3d 915, 925 (6th Cir. 2010); see also Hana v . Gonzales , 400 F.3d 472, 475–76 ( 6th Cir. 2005). “A marria g e was a sham if the bride and g room did not intend to establish a life toge ther at the time they wer e marrie d.” King v. Holder , 570 F.3d 785, 788 (6th Cir. 2009) (interna l quotation marks omitted); see In re Soriano , 19 I

. & N. Dec

. 764, 765 (B I A 1988). The parties’ conduct befor e and during the marria g e is rele vant t o their i ntent at t he ti me t hey marrie d. “Th e inqui ry involves deeply persona l questions, including those that p robe the couple’ s courtship, their share d experience s, their living arr ang ements afte r marria g e, and the deg ree to which they share assets and liabiliti es.” Surganova v. H older , 612 F.3d 901, 904 ( 7th Cir. 2010); cf. 8 C.F.R. § 216.5(e) (2).

B. Over whelming rec ord evidenc e supports the Boa rd’s finding that Adu-Adje i and Ba y never intended to e stablish a life toge ther. First of all, there is direc t evidenc e of fra ud. Ba y testified that the marria g e was a fra

ud, that s h e m ar ri ed Adu-Adje i in exchang e for money , and that she never

- 5 -No. 12-3070

Adu-Adjei v . Holder

intended to establish a life with him. She said she was initially promised $4,000 to marry Adu-Adje i and petition for a visa on his behalf

. She rec eived $1,300 prior to the CI S interview, $800 of which 1

came immediately afte r the two wer e marrie d. The I J found Ba y cr edibl e, and the Boa rd did not disturb that finding

. The rec ord d o es not compel a contra ry cre dibilit y finding

. Ba y ’s cre dited testimony by itself is e noug h to support the Boa rd’s decision on substantial-evidenc e revie w. See, e.g. , Singh v. Holder , 433 F. App’x 512, 513 (9th Cir. 2011); Gazdikova v. Holder , 4 2 3 F. App’x 731, 732 (9th Cir. 2011). Apar t from the direc t evidenc e of fra ud, substantial circ umstantial evidenc e also supports the Boa rd’s finding

. To beg in with, the timing of the wedding and the parties’ conduct prec eding it are highly sug g estive of fra

ud. Adu-Adje i and Ba

y obtained a marria g e licence one day afte r they first met. And one purpose of their init i al m ee t i n g, ac cording to Ba y , was to set a date for the civil

cer emony . When the two met at city hall to obtain their marria g e license, it was just the second time they had ever seen each other. One week later, t hey marrie d. No courtsh i p , fr i en d ship, or shared experience s (other than t h ei r initial meeting , which Adu-Adje i said lasted roug hly five hours) prec eded the marria g e. T h e p a r tie s’ conduct during marria g e also demonstrates a lack of intent to start a life toge the r . Adu-Adje i and Ba

y never lived toge ther. Whe n t h ey we re marrie d, they resided 600 miles apar t—Adu-Adjei was attending school in Atlanta, Geor g ia, and Ba y lived in Newa

rk, Ohio. Once ,

Ba y said at her CI S interview that she was promised $2,500. She explained at the 1 evidentiar y hear ing tha t the amount chang ed fr om $4,000 to $2,500. - 6 -No. 12-3070

Adu-Adjei v . Holder

wh en Adu-Adjei visited Ohio two months into the marria g e, he stay ed with friends in Columbus instead of stay ing with Ba y , who lived only 40 miles awa y . Ba y believed the g irl with whom AduAdjei stay ed when he visited was his g irlfriend. (Adu-A djei denied the rela tionship.) The next time Adu-Adje i returne d to Ohio was in September 2006, for his interview befor e CI S. Ba y never visited Adu-Adje i in Atlanta. The couple was never intimate toge ther, and thus the marria g e was never consummated. Adu-Adje i never met Ba y ’s teena g e daug hter, even though she lived with Ba y at the time Ba y marrie d Adu-Adje i. Fur thermore , Adu-Adje i and Ba y did not speak often, and, when they did speak, it was only for the purpose of further ing their fra ud. Ba y testified that the first time she spoke with Adu-Adje i

on the phone afte r they wer e marrie d was months afte r the civil cer emony . The purpose of the call

was to set a time to take pictures to submit to CI S in support of Ba y ’s visa petition. Adu-Adje i also called B ay

to notify her of the upcoming CI S interview. The two met a nd “tra ded informa

tion for when [they ] went to I mmigra tion.” Adu-Adje i r esponds to this evidenc e by say ing the I J should ha ve disbelieved Ba

y beca use her testimony was inconsistent with her past statements, she could not reme mber how much money she was promised to marry Adu-Adje i, and she was otherwise “extremely unreliable .” The I J acknow ledg ed that Ba

y ’s testimony was not fully consistent with her written statement withdrawing her visa petition and that Ba y was addicted to coca ine in 2001 and had felony convictions. Neve rtheless, the I J found that B ay cre dibly testified that she mar

ried Adu- Adjei onl y

for money

. He noted that her testimony was consistent with the testimony from Sh au b and Teich reg arding

- 7 -No. 12-3070

Adu-Adjei v . Holder

Ba y ’s inability during the CI S interviews to answe r basic questions about the marria g e. Ag ain, the

rec ord does not compe l a contra ry cre dibilit y

finding

. Adu-Adje i also claims he was unawa re Ba y was being paid to marry him and that he should not be punished for Ba

y ’s dece ption. He testified to having pure intentions, claiming he loved Ba y beca use she wa s “like a mother to [ him] ” and “ extremely nice.” He c laimed the two spoke on the phone and text ed “all the time.” Finally , he testified that he had no rea son to commit fra ud to obtain his residenc y , beca

use he was al re ad y l awfully prese nt in the United States. The I J found AduAdjei’s testimony reg arding his intentions and profe ssed ignor ance of the fra u d “unconvinc ing,” noting in particula

r that Adu-Adje i had admittedly lied during the CI S interview reg arding when and under what circ umstances he met Ba y . A rea sonable adjudicator would not be compelled to c redit Adu-Adje i’s tes t i m o n y o v er Ba y ’s, which was more consistent with the evidenc e indicative of marria g e fra

ud. Subs t an tial evidenc e supports the Boa rd’s finding that Adu-Adje i attempted to procur e a visa

by fra ud. I V. Next, Adu-Adje i arg ues that the I J err ed when he g rante d a continuance to allow DHS to locate Ba y for the evidentiar

y hear ing. Wit h o u t the continuance , he contends, Ba y ’s hear say statements would have been excluded, and the g overnme nt, lacking admissible evidenc e of marria g e fr au d, could not have met its burden. We revie w for an abuse of discretion the I J ’s decision to continue the proce eding s. Y oung Hee Kwak v. Ho l der , 6 0 7 F.3d 1140, 1143–44 (6th Cir. 2010). Such an abuse exis ts if the decision “wa s made without a rational explanation, inexpl icably depar ted

- 8 -No. 12-3070

Adu-Adjei v . Holder

from established policies, or rested on an impermissible basis such as invidious di s cr i m i nation.” Abu-Khaliel v. Gonzales , 436 F.3d 627, 634 ( 6th Cir. 2006) (interna l quotation marks omitted). The I J did not abuse h i s d i s cr eti on. Adu-Adje i primarily arg ues t hat DHS counsel sim ply

was unprepa

red for the hear ing and that lack of prepa ration is not “g ood cause ” for a continuance

. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (“The I mmigra tion J udg e may g rant a motion for continuance for g ood cause shown.”). Whil e the g overnme nt may have been unprepa red, Adu-Adje i offe rs no authority for the proposition that an I J abuses its discretion when it aff ords an unprepa

red party a continuance

. I ndeed, Adu-Adje i was g rante d two continuance s ear ly in the proce eding s due to his lack of prepa ration (and once despite a war ning from the I J that he be pre p are d at the next hear ing)

. Moreove r, Ba

y ’s testimony was centr al to the g overnme nt’s case , and the basis for its reque st for a continuance —to allow it more time to prepa re its case —was p er m i s s ible. We cannot say that continuing the proce eding s at DHS’s reque st was outside the “ra ng e of plausible assessments” from which the I J was pe rmitted to choose. King v . Taylor , 694 F.3d 650, 660 ( 6th Cir. 2012) (interna l quotation marks omitted). V. For these re asons, we de ny

the petition for re view.

- 9 -