NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 14 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MENTHER IBRAHEEM MUHAMD, AKA No. 19-72311 Mundhir Ibrahim Al Sabawi, Agency No. A212-383-029 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted September 3, 2020 Seattle, Washington Before: McKEOWN and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges, and CALDWELL,** District Judge. Menther Ibraheem Muhamd, a native and citizen of Iraq, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) determination that he is removable for being inadmissible at the time * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Karen K. Caldwell, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky, sitting by designation. of entry and denial of his applications for a waiver of inadmissibility, asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The parties are familiar with the facts, so we do not repeat them here. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. “We review agency factual findings and determinations of mixed questions of law and fact for substantial evidence,” and legal questions de novo. Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 776 (9th Cir. 2009). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) established Muhamd’s removability by “clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence.” Forbes v. I.N.S., 48 F.3d 439, 441–42 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Hernandez-Robledo v. INS, 777 F.2d 536, 539 (9th Cir. 1985) and 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(19) (1977)); see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(3)(A). A noncitizen is removable from the United States if, at the time of entry, he procured admission or other benefit under the Immigration and Nationality Act by willfully misrepresenting a material fact. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(6)(C)(i), 1227(a)(1)(A). A misrepresentation is willful if “deliberate and voluntary” and material if it has “a natural tendency to influence the decisions” of the agency. Forbes, 48 F.3d at 442 (citation omitted). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that DHS established by clear and convincing evidence that Muhamd made a misrepresentation that was 2 both willful and material. With respect to the willfulness of Muhamd’s misrepresentation, Muhamd does not contest that he failed to list all his siblings on his refugee resettlement application. Rather, in response to a request that he list all his siblings, Muhamd provided his ration card, which listed only Muhamd, his mother, and one brother. Certified Arabic interpreters conducted the interviews at which family information was solicited from Muhamd, and the application clearly requested “all immediate biological and legal parents, spouses, children and siblings.” Muhamd subsequently affirmed that his application and the attached family tree—listing only Muhamd, his mother, and one brother—were true, and the IJ and BIA were entitled to rely on the presumption that an “applicant’s signature establishes . ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals