Case Name: Musa SULE, aka James Matlock; Meriamu Oseni, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-04-21
Citations: 274 F. App'x 581
Docket Number: No. 04-73082
Parties: Musa SULE, aka James Matlock; Meriamu Oseni, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 274
Pages: 581–581

Head Matter:
Musa SULE, aka James Matlock; Meriamu Oseni, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-73082.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2008.
Filed April 21, 2008.
Sarah J.M. Jones, Law Offices of Sarah J.M. Jones, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.
Richard M. Evans, Andrew Oliveira, Washington, DC, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Ronald E. Lefevre, San Francisco, CA, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, for Respondent.
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
1. We lack jurisdiction to review petitioners' suspension of deportation claims, because "whether an alien has good moral character is an inquiry appropriate for the Attorney General's discretion." Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir.2003) (quoting Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir.1997)).
2. The IJ made an adverse credibility finding (which petitioners don't challenge), and petitioners don't dispute that they committed immigration fraud by arranging a sham marriage. Substantial evidence thus supports the IJ's finding that petitioners aren't eligible for asylum. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Petitioners are therefore also necessarily ineligible for withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). Petitioners' claims for relief under the Convention Against Torture fail because a reasonable adjudicator would not be compelled to find that it's more likely than not that they would be tortured if removed. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2).
PETITION DISMISSED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.