NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 22 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SHU-YEN LIN, AKA Shu Yen Chuang-Lin, No. 16-70457 AKA Shuyen Deglow, AKA Shu Yan Lin, AKA Suyan Lin, AKA Lin Su-Yan, Agency No. A075-284-745 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted March 13, 2019 San Francisco, California Before: M. SMITH, WATFORD, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Shu-Yen Lin petitions for review of two decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals that affirmed the Immigration Judge’s finding of removability, denied her application for a waiver of inadmissibility, and denied her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We deny her petition for review. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Page 2 of 5 1. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that the government demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Lin had procured a visa “by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact,” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i), which rendered her removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(A). Lin could qualify for her visa only if, as relevant here, she had been employed in a managerial capacity for at least one year in Taiwan. Id. § 1153(b)(1)(C). The petition filed on her behalf by her putative new employer represented that Lin had been employed for several years as an accounting manager at Win Win Advertising Co. The IJ found this material fact false, and that finding is supported by substantial evidence. For example, Lin’s brother (the vice president of Win Win) admitted during his criminal trial that he “falsely documented” Lin as a manager of Win Win for U.S. immigration purposes. The record also permitted the IJ to draw the inference “that the misrepresentation was deliberate and voluntary”—in other words, done at Lin’s behest or with her knowledge. Forbes v. INS, 48 F.3d 439, 442 (9th Cir. 1995). Lin contends that the Taiwanese court and tax records relied on by the government were inadmissible hearsay and not properly authenticated. The IJ may consider “probative” hearsay so long as its admission is “fundamentally fair.” Cunanan v. INS, 856 F.2d 1373, 1374 (9th Cir. 1988). The Taiwanese courts’ adjudication of the very issue before the IJ—whether Lin worked in a managerial capacity for Win Win—is undoubtedly probative, and Lin was “allowed to Page 3 of 5 examine,” and “given ample time to produce substantial evidence to rebut,” the court and tax records. Angov v. Lynch, 788 F.3d 893, 899 (9th Cir. 2015). Many of the court records were authenticated by an official seal in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 1287.6(b), and all were accompanied by “some sort of proof that the document is what it purports to be.” Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 833 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). While Agent ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals