DocketNumber: 07-70361
Judges: Wallace, Goodwin, Clifton
Filed Date: 1/6/2010
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 06 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MANJIT SINGH BRAR, No. 07-70361 Petitioner, Agency No. A047-410-192 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 15, 2009 ** Before: WALLACE, GOODWIN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. Manjit Singh Brar, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). AP/Research review for substantial evidence the IJ’s factual findings, Damon v. Ashcroft,360 F.3d 1084
, 1088 (9th Cir. 2004), and for abuse of discretion the denial of a request for a continuance, Biwot v. Gonzales,403 F.3d 1094
, 1099 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Brar’s marriage was not bona fide where Brar’s citizen-spouse testified she married Brar for immigration purposes, she received $15,000 for marrying him and the couple never resided together. SeeDamon, 360 F.3d at 1089
(test for a bona fide marriage is whether the couple intended to establish a life together at the time they were married); see also Bark v. INS,511 F.2d 1200
, 1201-02 (9th Cir. 1975) (conduct of parties after marriage is relevant to show intent at time of marriage). The IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying Brar a continuance. See De la Cruz v. INS,951 F.2d 226
, 229 (9th Cir. 1991) (no error in denying continuance where alien was ineligible for relief sought). Brar’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. AP/Research 2 07-70361