NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 19a0624n.06 No. 12-4053 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Dec 17, 2019 BANDAR ABU KARSH, ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk ) Petitioner, ) ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW v. ) FROM THE UNITED STATES ) BOARD OF IMMIGRATION WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, ) APPEALS ) Respondent. ) ORDER Before: WHITE, STRANCH, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges. Bandar Abu Karsh, a native of Saudi Arabia and citizen of Jordan, petitions through counsel for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). The parties have waived oral argument, and this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a). In 2007, the United States admitted Karsh on a student visa so that he could attend the University of Toledo. He received approval to transfer to the University of Bridgeport and begin classes in the spring of 2008. When he failed to enroll, the University of Bridgeport terminated his enrollment and the Department of Homeland Security personally served him with a notice to appear. At a hearing on May 6, 2009, Karsh conceded removability, but stated that he had married a United States citizen (Helen Caballero) and was seeking an adjustment of status on that basis under an I-130 petition filed by his wife. The immigration judge (“IJ”) granted the first of seven continuances related to the I-130 petition. No. 12-4053, Karsh v. Barr In 2010, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services issued a notice of intent to deny the I-130 petition for various reasons, which included: Caballero’s prior marriage for the admitted purpose of obtaining an immigration benefit for her first husband; her second marriage to a man who the United States had deported; Karsh’s and Caballero’s conflicting responses at an interview; and lack of evidence of commingled financial resources. Although Caballero responded to the notice, the I-130 petition was denied because her response addressed few discrepancies from the interview, the marriage occurred after Karsh was in removal proceedings, and there was little evidence that Karsh had a financial stake in Caballero’s residence. Thus, Caballero failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that she had not entered into her marriage to Karsh for immigration purposes. See Immigration and Nationality Act § 245(e)(3) (codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1255(e)(3)). Caballero appealed and filed a second I-130 petition. The appeal of the first I-130 petition was denied in 2011. Upon learning of the pending second I-130 petition at a hearing, the government objected to any further continuances. Karsh’s attorney responded that Caballero had since received a diagnosis of schizophrenia, that her schizophrenia had caused behavior contributing to the denial of the first I-130 petition, and that she now received medication. In an oral decision, the IJ declined to grant a continuance because there was “no reason to believe from the evidence presented” that an IJ would adjudicate the second I-130 petition differently. On October 5, 2011, the IJ ordered Karsh’s removal. In ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals