Benzine v. Holder
This text of 339 F. App'x 825 (Benzine v. Holder) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Perla Montebon Benzine, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the IJ’s findings of fact, Moran v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1089, 1091 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Benzine was removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(A) as an alien who at the time of entry was inadmissible for lack of valid entry documentation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). The record supports the conclusion that Benzine’s marriage was not valid under Philippine law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(3)(A); see also Mayo v. Schiltgen, 921 F.2d 177, 180 (8th Cir.1990) (remanding for determination as to validity of marriage where petitioner “submitted substantial authority supporting her argument that if the marriage ceremony was performed before issuance of a license, the marriage is void under Philippine law”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid[827]*827ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
339 F. App'x 825, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benzine-v-holder-ca9-2009.