UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED United States Court of Appeals FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Tenth Circuit _________________________________ September 17, 2019 NAVADO RICARDO BROWN, Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court Petitioner, v. No. 18-9580 (Petition for Review) WILLIAM P. BARR, United States Attorney General, Respondent. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, BALDOCK and HARTZ, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Navado Ricardo Brown petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision affirming an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision denying his application for adjustment of status. 1 Exercising jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, we deny the petition for review. * After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 1 The BIA also dismissed Brown’s appeal of the IJ’s denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Background Brown is a native and citizen of Jamaica who entered the United States in 2013 on a nonimmigrant K–1 fiancé visa, see 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(K)(i), which authorized him to remain in the country until February 25, 2014. Brown overstayed his visa and in June 2017, he pleaded guilty to felony menacing in Colorado state court. Before his scheduled sentencing hearing, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) took him into custody and initiated removal proceedings, charging him with removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B) for staying in the country beyond the period authorized by his visa. At a hearing in October 2017, Brown admitted the allegations regarding his nationality and that he had overstayed his visa without permission, but he alleged that he married his fiancée, a U.S. citizen, before his visa expired and sought to extend it. The IJ continued the removal proceedings to allow the parties to determine whether Brown complied with the terms of his visa. She encouraged him to get a pro bono attorney to help him prove his marriage and resolve other visa-related issues with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS). At the next hearing, Brown submitted a marriage certificate indicating that he and his U.S. citizen wife had gotten married before his visa expired. Counsel for DHS indicated that it had no record of the marriage and that Brown had not sought either an extension of his visa or adjustment of his status. The IJ continued the Torture (CAT), but he does not challenge those rulings on appeal. Accordingly, we do not address them. 2 removal proceedings to allow DHS to determine whether Brown had filed the marriage certificate with USCIS and to allow Brown to ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals