Donghong Ye v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 540 F. App'x 656 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             SEP 26 2013
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    DONGHONG YE, AKA Dong Hong Ye,                   No. 09-70971
    Petitioner,                        Agency No. A075-753-992
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Argued and Submitted September 12, 2013
    San Francisco, California
    Before: SCHROEDER and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and BEISTLINE, Chief
    District Judge.**
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **     The Honorable Ralph R. Beistline, Chief United States District Judge
    for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.
    Donghong Ye, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing Ye’s appeal of the
    Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying any relief from removal. The denial
    was on the basis of marriage fraud. Substantial evidence supported the finding of
    marriage fraud, including the admission of Ye’s ex-wife that she was paid to enter
    a marriage that was not bona fide. The BIA did not fail to take hardship claims
    into account or otherwise abuse its discretion when it denied a waiver of
    inadmissability.
    Ye’s principal argument is that the IJ should not have denied him a
    continuance in order to permit his mother to obtain an interpreter. The only
    purpose that was stated for her testimony was that she would describe the
    persecution Ye’s father experienced when Ye was a child. Since there was no
    nexus between the father’s persecution and the likelihood of Ye himself being
    persecuted, the testimony could not have affected the decision in the case. See
    Singh v. I.N.S., 
    134 F.3d 962
    , 967 (9th Cir. 1998).
    The petition for review is DENIED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-70971

Citation Numbers: 540 F. App'x 656

Judges: Schroeder, Bybee, Beistline

Filed Date: 9/26/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024