Duy Do v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

Ninth Circuit

Duy Do v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

401 F. App'x 256

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 27, 2010

Docket08-72681

StatusUnpublished

This text of 401 F. App'x 256 (Duy Do v. Eric H. Holder Jr.) 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.

Bluebook

Duy Do v. Eric H. Holder Jr., 401 F. App'x 256 (9th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Ngoc Anh Thi Le and her son, Duy Phuong Le Do, natives and citizens of Vietnam, petition the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Damon v. Ashcroft, 360 F.3d 1084, 1088 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Le failed to satisfy her burden of establishing that she entered into a good faith marriage, where the evidence indicates Le and her former spouse had limited joint assets and only lived together for four months. Cf id. at 1088-89 (evidence of shared finances and a year-long shared residency was substantial evidence that couple intended to establish a life together at the time they were married); see also 8 C.F.R. § 216.5(e)(2)©-(iv).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Ngoc Anh Thi Le and her son, Duy Phuong Le Do, natives and citizens of Vietnam, petition the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Damon v. Ashcroft, 360 F.3d 1084, 1088 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Le failed to satisfy her burden of establishing that she entered into a good faith marriage, where the evidence indicates Le and her former spouse had limited joint assets and only lived together for four months. Cf id. at 1088-89 (evidence of shared finances and a year-long shared residency was substantial evidence that couple intended to establish a life together at the time they were married); see also 8 C.F.R. § 216.5(e)(2)©-(iv).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

401 F. App'x 256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duy-do-v-eric-h-holder-jr-ca9-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack