Case Name: Muhammad PARVEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-08
Citations: 382 F. App'x 593
Docket Number: No. 07-70161
Parties: Muhammad PARVEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 382
Pages: 593–594

Head Matter:
Muhammad PARVEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-70161.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 25, 2010.
Filed June 8, 2010.
Alan M. Kaufman, Kaufman & Kaufman, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Terri Leon Benner, Margaret A. O’Donnell, Patricia A. Smith, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, 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
Muhammad Parvez, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") order finding Parvez removable and denying his application under 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4)(B) for waiver of the joint-filing requirement to remove the conditional basis of his lawful permanent resident status. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's denial of the waiver, Oropeza-Wong v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1135, 1147 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny the petition for review.
The IJ found Parvez not credible based on inconsistencies between Parvez and his ex-wife's testimony regarding the nature and number of them marriage ceremonies and the consummation of their marriage. Because these inconsistencies go to the heart of whether the marriage was entered into in good faith, substantial evidence supports the denial of Parvez's waiver application. See id. at 1148.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.