Principe v. Holder , 596 F. App'x 44 ( 2015 )

14-1078
Principe v. Holder
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED
ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE
PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A
DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST
SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 11th day of March, two thousand fifteen.
5
6 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,
7 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
8 Circuit Judges,
9 PAMELA K. CHEN,
10 District Judge.*
11
12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
13 DORIS PRINCIPE,
14 Petitioner-Appellant,
15
16 -v.- 14-1078
17
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent-Appellee.
21 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: ROBERT C. ROSS, West Haven, CT.
24
*
The Honorable Pamela K. Chen, United States District
Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by
designation.
1 FOR RESPONDENT: NANCY E. FRIEDMAN (with Joyce R.
2 Branda and Kevin J. Conway, on the
3 brief), Office of Immigration
4 Litigation, Civil Division, United
5 States Department of Justice,
6 Washington, DC.
7
8 Petition for review of a final order of removal issued
9 by the Board of Immigration Appeals.
10
11 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED
12 AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED.
13
14 Petitioner Doris Principe challenges the final order of
15 removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)
16 in which it dismissed an appeal from the decision of
17 Immigration Judge Michael W. Straus, denying her application
18 for adjustment of status under Immigration and Nationality
19 Act § 245(i). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
20 underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues
21 presented for review.
22
23 As the immigration judge recognized, the issue before
24 the agency was whether Principe was a “grandfathered” alien.
25 An alien has such status if a petition was filed on her
26 behalf that was “approvable when filed.” See Butt v.
27 Gonzales, 500 F.3d 130, 134 (2d Cir. 2007). A petition is
28 “approvable when filed” if it was “properly filed,”
29 “meritorious in fact” and “non-frivolous.” 8 C.F.R.
30 § 245.10(a)(3). In this case, the petition at issue was
31 based on Principe’s then-marriage. Therefore, Principe must
32 show that the marriage was “bona fide. It is not enough to
33 show merely that a marriage existed.” Linares Huarcaya v.
34 Mukasey, 550 F.3d 224, 227 (2d Cir. 2008) (internal
35 quotation marks and citation omitted). In other words,
36 Principe was required to show that the petition was “based
37 on a genuine marriage in which the parties intended to share
38 a life as husband and wife, not a marriage of convenience
39 designed solely to confer an immigration benefit on one of
40 the parties.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
41
42 The record supports the agency’s findings of fact, and
43 certainly does not compel a contrary conclusion.
44 Accordingly, we find no error in the agency’s determination
45 that Principe is not a “grandfathered” alien. See 8 U.S.C.
46 § 1252(b)(4)(B) (“the administrative findings of fact are
2
1 conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be
2 compelled to conclude to the contrary”).
3
4 For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in
5 Principe’s other arguments, we hereby DENY the petition for
6 review.
7
8 FOR THE COURT:
9 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK
10
3