Mazo Hernandez v. Sessions

17-1246-ag Mazo Hernandez v. Sessions BIA Straus, IJ A074 912 812 A074 910 080 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION ASUMMARY ORDER@). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 1st day of May, two thousand eighteen. PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, RICHARD C. WESLEY, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ Hector Mario Mazo Hernandez, Monica Bibiana Mazo, Petitioners, v. 17-1246 Jefferson B. Sessions III, United States Attorney General, Respondent. ____________________________________ FOR PETITIONERS: JUSTIN CONLON, Hartford, CT. FOR RESPONDENT: RUSSELL J.E. VERBY, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice (with Chad A. Readler, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, and Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director, on the brief), Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Petitioners Hector Mario Mazo Hernandez (“Hernandez”) and Monica Bibiana Mazo (“Mazo”), natives and citizens of Colombia, seek review of the June 18, 2013 and April 7, 2017, decisions of the BIA affirming the March 26, 2012 and February 3, 2015, decisions of an immigration judge (“IJ”) ordering the petitioners removed to Colombia and denying a waiver of inadmissibility. In re Hector Mario Mazo Hernandez, Monica Bibiana Mazo, Nos. A074 912 812/074 910 080 (B.I.A. June 18, 2013 and Apr. 7, 2017), aff’g Nos. A074 912 812/074 910 080 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Mar. 26, 2012 and Feb. 3, 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. Because “the BIA adopt[ed] the IJ’s reasoning and offer[ed] additional commentary,” we have reviewed the IJ’s decisions “as supplemented by the BIA.” Wala v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 102, 105 (2d Cir. 2007). 1. The petitioners were charged as removable under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1227(a)(1)(A) and 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) for misrepresenting themselves as being in bona fide marriages with their former spouses. Under those provisions, “[a]ny alien who at the time of entry or adjustment of status,” id. § 1227(a)(1)(A), was inadmissible for seeking an immigration benefit “by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact” is deportable, id. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) (emphasis added). The petitioners assert that the Government was required to show that they committed marriage fraud, i.e. that they had entered into their first marriages to obtain immigration benefits. The ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals