Case Name: Dinesh KHANNA; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-09-02
Citations: 449 F. App'x 589
Docket Number: No. 08-73020
Parties: Dinesh KHANNA; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 449
Pages: 589–589

Head Matter:
Dinesh KHANNA; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-73020.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 31, 2011.
Filed Sept. 2, 2011.
Wade J. Chernick, Law Office of Wade J. Chernick, Encino, CA, for Petitioners.
Wendy Benner-Leon, Esquire, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Dinesh Khanna, his wife, and his son, citizens of India, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' dismissal of their appeal from an immigration judge's order denying their applications for adjustment under Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i). Petitioners contend that the agency erred in ruling that Dinesh Khanna failed to meet his burden of establishing that the April 2, 2001 application for alien employment certification filed on his behalf was " 'approvable when filed' within the meaning of 8 C.F.R. § 1245.10(a)." We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. The BIA's determination that the application for alien employment certification filed on Khanna's behalf was not meritorious in fact or ap-provable when filed is consistent with the agency's interpretation of the implementing regulations for eligibility to be "grandfathered" under Section 245(i), Matter of Riero, 24 I. & N. Dec. 267, 268-69 (BIA 2007), and is supported by substantial evidence.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.