NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 14 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARIA RITA CASTILLO, AKA Maria No. 18-70861 Rita Moreno Velasquez, Agency No. A075-647-037 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 5, 2020** Pasadena, California Before: GOULD and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges, and HELLERSTEIN,*** District Judge. Maria Rita Castillo petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing her appeal from the Immigration Judge’s * 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). *** The Honorable Alvin K. Hellerstein, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. (“IJ”) removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review due process claims de novo. Chavez-Reyes v. Holder, 741 F.3d 1, 3 (9th Cir. 2014). We review factual findings for substantial evidence. Nakamoto v. Ashcroft, 363 F.3d 874, 881 (9th Cir. 2004). Under the substantial evidence standard, factual findings are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary. Id. at 881–82. The government has the burden of proof to establish removability by clear and convincing evidence. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(3)(A). Combining these standards, we consider whether substantial evidence supports a finding by clear and convincing evidence that Castillo entered into a fraudulent marriage in order to obtain her status as a permanent resident. Nakamoto, 363 F.3d at 882. We deny the petition for review. Castillo is a native and citizen of Mexico. She married Ruben Castillo (“Ruben”), an American citizen, and adjusted to Legal Permanent Resident status based upon the marriage. Almost 12 years after their ceremony of marriage, Castillo and Ruben divorced. Around the time of the divorce, Ruben called a Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) tip line and reported that the marriage was a fraud entered into for immigration purposes. DHS Officer Elias Valdez investigated the tip and interviewed both Castillo and Ruben. According to Officer Valdez’s Summary of Findings, Castillo admitted to marriage fraud and admitted to being in a relationship with Sophie Durant, Ruben’s aunt. Ruben alleged that 2 Durant offered him $5,000 to marry Castillo. Based on this information, DHS filed a Notice to Appear charging Castillo with removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(A). Castillo’s due process rights were potentially violated when the IJ admitted Ruben’s affidavit without any effort from the government to secure his in-person testimony. An alien facing removal is entitled to “a full and fair hearing of [her] claims and a reasonable opportunity to present evidence on [her] behalf.” Cinapian v. Holder, 567 F.3d 1067, 1073 (9th Cir. 2009) (alteration in original) (quoting Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000)). Although the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals