Falae v. Ashcroft ( 2005 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 04-1288
MICHAEL OLUSEAN FALAE, A/K/A VINCENT OLANREWAJU ADEYEMI,
Petitioner,
v.
ALBERTO R. GONZÁLES,* ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER
OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
Before
Boudin, Chief Judge,
Torruella and Selya, Circuit Judges.
Ronald W. Thompson Jr. on brief for petitioner.
Peter Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division,
Anthony W. Norwood, Senior Litigation Counsel, and Jennifer
Levings, Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, on brief for
respondent.
June 9, 2005
__________
*Alberto R. Gonzáles was sworn in as United States Attorney General
on February 3, 2005. We have therefore substituted Attorney
General Gonzáles for his predecessor in office as respondent in
this matter. See Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2).
SELYA, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Michael Olusean Falae,
a Nigerian national, seeks review of a final order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to remand proceedings
to an immigration judge (IJ) in order to allow him to apply for
adjustment of his immigration status. The proposed adjustment was
based on the combined force of (i) the approval of a so-called I-
140 visa application sponsored by his employer, see 8 U.S.C. §
1255, and (ii) his marriage to a United States citizen, see id. §
1182(i)(1). The petitioner argues that these two events qualify
him for a waiver of inadmissability and an adjustment of status
under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Discerning no
abuse of discretion, we deny the petition for review.
The petitioner arrived in the United States in April of
1995 armed with a tourist visa that apparently authorized him to
remain for six months. We say "apparently" because both the visa
and the petitioner's passport had been issued in the name of one
Vincent Olanrewaju Adeyemi. The petitioner initially lived with
his fiancée, Stella Olujoke, a non-citizen whom he had known in
Nigeria. He did not leave after six months and, in March of 1996,
he jilted Olujoke and married a United States citizen.1
1
During the hearings before the immigration court, the
petitioner testified that he could not remember the last name of
his former spouse. He referred to her throughout as "April," and
we follow suit.
-2-
In July of 1997, the petitioner divorced April without
ever having lived with her. Nine days later, he married his once
and former fiancée, Olujoke, who then amended her pending
application for asylum and related relief to include the
petitioner. The petitioner and Olujoke were interviewed by an
asylum officer in May of 1999. That interview resulted in an
unfavorable recommendation and the institution of removal
proceedings. The notice to appear was made returnable to the
immigration court in Boston.
At the start, the Immigration and Naturalization Service
(INS) charged the petitioner with illegal entry into the United
States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i).2 Subsequently,
the INS lodged additional charges of inadmissability and
deportability, under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(A), based on the use of
fraudulent documents to gain entry into the United States. The
same sort of charges were lodged against Olujoke. While the two
cases were consolidated for some period of time, that order was
rescinded after the petitioner and Olujoke divorced. Olujoke's
case is pending before us (Appeal No. 04-1252) and will be
addressed in a separate opinion. In this opinion, we chronicle
2
The Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-296, § 471,
116 Stat. 2135, 2205 (codified as amended at 6 U.S.C. § 291(a)),
eliminated the INS and transferred its duties to the Department of
Homeland Security. See Lattab v. Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 8, 13 n.2 (1st
Cir. 2004). For simplicity's sake, we continue to refer to the INS
throughout this opinion.
-3-
only those facts and proceedings that relate directly to the
petitioner.
To make a tedious tale tolerably terse, the petitioner
conceded removability and moved to amend his pleadings to permit an
application for adjustment of status based on the approval of an I-
140 visa application filed on the petitioner's behalf by his
employer, the Providence School Department. The approval of that
application resulted in his classification as a skilled worker and,
thus, afforded a potential avenue to allow him to remain in the
United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(3)(A) (establishing a
special visa category for skilled workers who obtain labor
certification).
In October of 2000, the IJ found that the petitioner's
fraudulent use of documents to gain entry into the United States
debarred him from an adjustment of status, notwithstanding the
approved I-140 application. The IJ further found that the
petitioner lacked credibility. She based this credibility
determination on his demeanor, myriad inconsistencies in his trial
testimony, and questionable documentation submitted on his behalf
(including a bogus yearbook photograph). The IJ found
"particularly troubling" the petitioner's inability to recall any
details about his first marriage (including his wife's last name)
and the fact that the petitioner and his first wife never lived
together. Although the IJ declined to make a specific finding that
-4-
the union was entered into for the purpose of evading United States
immigration laws, see 8 U.S.C. § 1154(c), she thought it probable
that the marriage was a sham (she termed it a "green card"
marriage). She also deemed it "curious" that the petitioner's
second marriage "occurred a mere nine days after his divorce became
final."
Based upon these and other findings, the IJ concluded
that the petitioner had not shown past persecution in Nigeria by
credible testimony. Consequently, he had not established
eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under
the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Furthermore, the IJ declared
the petitioner ineligible for a waiver of inadmissibility under 8
U.S.C. § 1182(i) because he could not identify any qualifying
citizen relatives in the United States. Accordingly, the IJ
pretermitted the application for adjustment of status, ordered the
petitioner removed to Nigeria, and denied his request for voluntary
departure.
The petitioner filed a timely appeal with the BIA and, a
month later, divorced Olujoke. Three months thereafter, he
married Sandra Hannah, a United States citizen. He then filed a
motion to remand so that he might seek adjustment of status based
on the combination of (i) the approved I-140 visa application
submitted by his employer and (ii) his marriage to a Untied States
citizen. As part of his proffer, the petitioner asseverated that
-5-
deportation to Nigeria would impose extreme hardship upon his new
bride, who allegedly suffered from a kaleidoscopic array of medical
and psychological disorders.
In January of 2004, the BIA upheld the IJ's
determinations and rejected the petitioner's merits appeal. It
simultaneously denied his motion to remand. On that score, the BIA
noted that the petitioner had married his new wife "a mere 7
months" after he was ordered removed by the IJ and explained that
the petitioner's "lack of credibility at his hearing, his prior use
of fraudulent documents, his previous marital history and the
timing of his current marriage" argued persuasively against an
affirmative exercise of its discretion to reopen the proceedings.
This petition for judicial review followed.
The petitioner seeks judicial review of the BIA's denial
of his motion to remand — no more and no less.3 In that motion, he
asked the BIA to remand the matter to the IJ in order to allow him
to pursue an adjustment of status. Neither the INA nor the BIA's
rules of practice recognize motions to remand as such. Here,
however, the motion to remand was plainly in the nature of a motion
to reopen the proceedings before the IJ (the IJ originally adjudged
him ineligible for relief in part because he lacked a qualifying
citizen relative; once he had married a United States citizen, he
3
Given the circumscribed nature of the relief requested, we
need not address the BIA's affirmance of the decision to deny
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the CAT.
-6-
sought to present fresh evidence of his newfound eligibility for an
adjustment of status). The BIA, therefore, properly treated the
motion to remand as a motion to reopen. See In re Coelho, 20 I. &
N. Dec. 464, 471 (BIA 1992). So do we.
Motions to reopen are disfavored in immigration practice
because of the compelling public interests in finality and the
expeditious processing of proceedings. INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94,
107 (1988); Fesseha v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 13, 20 (1st Cir. 2003).
The granting or denial of such a motion is discretionary. See INS
v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992). At a bare minimum, the
movant must make a showing of prima facie eligibility for the
relief that he seeks. See, e.g., Afful v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 1, 8
(1st Cir. 2004). He also must show that the evidence sought to be
introduced on remand is material and that it was not previously
available. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); see also Fesseha, 333 F.3d
at 20. Even if he satisfies these threshold conditions, he is not
home free; he still must persuade the BIA to exercise its
discretion affirmatively and order the case reopened. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(a); see also Abudu, 485 U.S. at 105.
We review the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen for
abuse of discretion. See Jupiter v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 487, 490
(1st Cir. 2005). This means that we will interfere with the BIA's
disposition of such a motion only if the petitioner can establish
that the BIA made an error of law or acted in a manner that is
-7-
fairly characterizable as arbitrary or capricious. See Carter v.
INS, 90 F.3d 14, 17 (1st Cir. 1996); see also Henry v. INS, 74 F.3d
1, 4 (1st Cir. 1996) (explaining that the BIA may abuse its
discretion by "neglecting to consider a significant factor that
appropriately bears on the discretionary decision, by attaching
weight to a factor that does not appropriately bear on the
decision, or by assaying all the proper factors and no improper
ones, but nonetheless making a clear judgmental error in weighing
them"). In conducting this deferential review, we must keep in
mind that the usual reasons for ceding deference to agency
decisionmaking on similar motions in other administrative contexts
have special force in the immigration context. See Abudu, 485 U.S.
at 110.
We assume, for argument's sake, that the petitioner made
the required showing of prima facie eligibility for an adjustment
of status. His marriage to a United States citizen, if bona fide,
rendered him presumptively eligible for such an adjustment. See 8
U.S.C. § 1182(i) (authorizing a waiver of inadmissibility for fraud
or willful misrepresentation if the Attorney General determines
that the alien's removal from the United States would result in
extreme hardship to the alien's citizen spouse). Moreover,
evidence of such a union is material to the relief sought (i.e., it
has the potential to influence the outcome of the application for
an adjustment of status) and, inasmuch as the nuptials occurred
-8-
after the IJ's decision, that evidence was unavailable during the
original hearings.
Given these assumptions, this case turns on the BIA's
negative exercise of its discretion. We discern no abuse.
Although the BIA did not make a specific "sham marriage" finding,
it made pellucid its grave doubts as to the suspicious timing of
the petitioner's marriage to Hannah and the genuineness of that
marriage. It then cited, as aggravating factors, the petitioner's
persistent use of fraudulent documents, his checkered marital
history, and his overall lack of credibility.
We view these facts as relevant and the BIA's reliance on
them as reasonable. The key is the adverse credibility finding —
a finding that derives ample support from the record. The
petitioner's actions showed quite clearly that he had no
compunctions about using bogus documentation (and, thus, about
dissembling in an effort to evade the immigration laws). His
course of conduct gave rise to a plausible inference — an inference
that the IJ chose to draw — that he viewed marriage less as a
sacrament and more as a tool for ensuring continued residency in
the United States. And, finally, his demeanor on the witness stand
and his evasiveness in the face of close questioning were, as the
IJ noted, telling indicia of a lack of forthrightness. Perhaps the
most glaring examples are his convenient memory loss when queried
-9-
about his first marriage and his attempts to "coach" Olujoke when
she testified in his behalf.
The short of it is that the adverse credibility finding
was fully supported. That finding undermined not only the
petitioner's case in chief but also his motion to remand. There
was, therefore, a sound and wholly rational predicate for the BIA's
negative exercise of its discretion. See Krazoun v. Ashcroft, 350
F.3d 208, 212 (1st Cir. 2003).
In arguing for an opposite conclusion, the petitioner
makes two points that warrant brief rebuttal. First, he invites us
to hold that this case is controlled by In re Velarde-Pacheco, 23
I. & N. Dec. 253 (BIA 2002), in which the BIA granted a motion to
reopen proceedings pending adjudication of an I-130 visa
application. We decline the invitation because the two cases are
not fair congeners. In Velarde-Pacheco, unlike in this case, the
petitioner (whom the BIA deemed credible) had established the bona
fides of his marriage to a United States citizen by clear and
convincing evidence. See id. at 256. Even then, the BIA
emphasized that the grant of relief was entirely a matter of
discretion. Id.Second, the petitioner claims that the BIA overlooked
factors that speak in favor of granting him relief. These include
his record of steady employment, his lack of a criminal record, the
positive impact he has had on Hannah's life, and his acquiescent
-10-
participation in immigration proceedings. We readily agree that
these are mitigating factors, but it is sheer conjecture to say
that the BIA overlooked them. The petitioner's remonstrance, then,
reduces to a claim that the BIA attached insufficient weight to
these mitigating factors.
We reject that claim. The BIA, in evaluating a motion to
reopen, must consider the record as a whole. Zhao v. U.S. Dep't of
Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 97 (2d Cir. 2001). Thus, its exercise of
discretion typically will entail the weighing of multiple factors,
not all of which point in the same direction. See Chen v. INS, 87
F.3d 5, 7 (1st Cir. 1996). Here, the mitigating factors marshaled
by the petitioner simply do not, either as a matter of law or as a
matter of logic, so overbalance the adverse factors emphasized by
the BIA as to require a finding of misused discretion. See Henry,
74 F.3d at 4 (stating that a finding of abuse of discretion, under
such circumstances, requires a showing that the BIA made "a clear
judgmental error in weighing [competing factors]") (emphasis
supplied).
We need go no further. On this record, the BIA acted
well within the realm of its discretion in rejecting the
petitioner's motion to remand the proceedings.
The petition for review is denied.
-11-