Case Name: Gerardo VALDOVINOS-INFANTE, a.k.a. Gerardo Infante Valdovinos, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-07-26
Citations: 389 F. App'x 689
Docket Number: No. 08-70843
Parties: Gerardo VALDOVINOS-INFANTE, a.k.a. Gerardo Infante Valdovinos, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 389
Pages: 689–690

Head Matter:
Gerardo VALDOVINOS-INFANTE, a.k.a. Gerardo Infante Valdovinos, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-70843.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 29, 2010.
Filed July 26, 2010.
Theodore A. Mahr, Esquire, Moses Lake,- WA, for Petitioner.
Wendy Benner-Leon, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, WWS-District Counsel, Esquire, Immigration and Naturalization Service Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, 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
Gerardo Valdovinos-Infante, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board- of Immigration Appeals' order summarily affirming an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying his application for a waiver- under 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(cj(4)(B). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the IJ's order denying the waiver, Damon v. Ashcroft, 360 F.3d 1084, 1088 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ's conclusion that Valdovinos-Infante failed to satisfy his burden of establishing that his marriage was entered into in good faith where he did not submit sufficient documentation indicating that he and his wife intended to establish a life together at the time of their marriage. See Oropeza-Wong v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1135, 1148 (9th Cir.2005).
We decline to consider the evidence Val-dovinos-Infante attached to his opening brief because our review is limited to the administrative record underlying the IJ's decision. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc):
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.