Ronald Talledo v. Jefferson Sessions ( 2018 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JUL 17 2018
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RONALD TALLEDO, No. 13-72981
Petitioner, Agency No. A047-672-841
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 15, 2018**
Honolulu, Hawaii
Before: TASHIMA, W. FLETCHER, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Ronald Talledo petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from a final order of removal. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Persons found inadmissible due to willful misrepresentation or fraud may
apply for a waiver of that inadmissibility ground if they are the spouse, son, or
daughter of a lawful permanent resident (LPR) and establish that removal would
result in extreme hardship to the LPR. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(i). Substantial evidence
supports the BIA’s decision that Talledo’s parents abandoned their legal LPR
status. An LPR does not retain her status after leaving the United States unless she
“return[s] to an unrelinquished lawful permanent residence after a temporary visit
abroad.” Khoshfahm v. Holder, 655 F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir. 2011) (quotation
marks and citations omitted). “A trip is a ‘temporary visit abroad’ if (a) it is for a
‘relatively short’ period, fixed by some early event; or (b) the trip will terminate
upon the occurrence of an event that has a reasonable possibility of occurring
within a relatively short period of time.” Singh v. Reno, 113 F.3d 1512, 1514 (9th
Cir. 1997) (citation omitted). The LPR must also maintain an “intent to return to
the United States within a relatively short period.” Id. Talledo’s parents were both
permanent residents in the past. But they had been absent from the United States
for ten years at the time of Talledo’s removal hearing and there is no evidence that
they maintained an intent to return throughout that time.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Talledo’s motion to remand.
The BIA will not grant a motion to remand unless “the evidence reveals a
2
reasonable likelihood that the statutory requirements for relief have been satisfied.”
Garcia v. Holder, 621 F.3d 906, 912 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Ordonez v. INS, 345
F.3d 777, 785 (9th Cir.2003)). Talledo met his burden of showing that he likely
had a qualifying relative. Photocopies of Talledo’s parents’ passports show that
they have now obtained a “IR-5” or immediate relative visas, and reentered the
country. See U.S. Dep’t of State, Family-Based Immigrant Visas, available at
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/immigrate/
family-immigration/family-based-immigrant-visas.html; see also U.S. Dep’t of
State, What the Visa Expiration Date Means, available at https://travel.state.gov/
content/travel/en/us-visas/visa-information-resources/visa-expiration-date.html;
Kater v. Churchill Downs Inc., 886 F.3d 784, 788 n.3 (9th Cir. 2018) (“We grant
Kater’s motion to take judicial notice of the slideshow, meeting minutes, and
pamphlet because they are publicly available on the Washington government
website, and neither party disputes the authenticity of the website nor the accuracy
of the information.”). Talledo, however, submitted no information showing how
his parents will experience hardship now that they have reentered the United
States. He thus has not established a likelihood of establishing that statutory
requirement.
3
Finally, Talledo is not eligible for an INA § 237(a)(1)(H) waiver. 8 U.S.C. §
1227(a)(1)(H). Only persons “in and admitted” to the country are eligible for the
waiver. Id. § 1227(a). The customs official that discovered Talledo’s fraud refused
to admit him into the country. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(A). Talledo cannot take
advantage of the more permissive definition of “admitted” in 8 U.S.C. §
1101(a)(13)(C) because he was not lawfully admitted for permanent residence.
Hing Sum v. Holder, 602 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2010); In re Koloamatangi, 23
I. & N. Dec. 548, 549 (BIA 2003).
PETITION DENIED.
4