NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 25 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PHALKUN BUN HEANG, No. 08-74058 15-70380 Petitioner, Agency No. A095-448-037 v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 12, 2019** San Francisco, California Before: GOULD and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and PEARSON,*** District Judge. Petitioner Phalkun Bun Heang is a Cambodian national petitioning for review of two Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) final orders. In one petition, Heang seeks review of the BIA’s order denying her claims for adjustment of status, * 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 Benita Y. Pearson, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation. asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and voluntary departure. In the other petition, Heang seeks review of the BIA’s order denying her motion to reopen the removal proceedings against her. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and deny the petitions for review. Heang argues that the BIA erred in denying her claim for adjustment of status in light of her marriage to a U.S. citizen. 1. Heang argues that she was denied due process because her adjustment of status interview with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) was conducted in English. We will reverse the BIA’s decision on due process grounds only “if the proceeding was so fundamentally unfair that the alien was prevented from reasonably presenting his case.” Lianhua Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 741 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000)). In determining whether a petitioner’s marriage can be a valid basis for an adjustment of immigration status, “the central question is whether [the petitioner and his or her spouse] intended to establish a life together at the time they were married.” Damon v. Ashcroft, 360 F.3d 1084, 1088 (9th Cir. 2004). Heang has not shown that “the outcome of the proceeding may have been affected by the alleged violation,” in order to sustain her due process challenge. Cinapian v. Holder, 567 F.3d 1067, 1074 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Colmenar, 210 F.3d at 971). The BIA explicitly held that even if it were to discount evidence 2 about the marriage from Heang’s interview with USCIS, it would have found that Heang and her husband did not intend to establish a life together. Substantial evidence supports that determination. Testimony in front of the Immigration Judge established that Heang and her husband did not live together, had never consummated the marriage, and had no evidence of their intention to maintain a genuine relationship. We deny Heang’s petition for review of the BIA’s denial of her claim for ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals