Gui Ye v. Jefferson Sessions

Ninth Circuit

Gui Ye v. Jefferson Sessions

692 F. App'x 823

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 22, 2017

Docket14-73490

StatusUnpublished

This text of 692 F. App'x 823 (Gui Ye v. Jefferson Sessions) 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

Gui Ye v. Jefferson Sessions, 692 F. App'x 823 (9th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Gui Sheng Ye petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision sustaining the Department of Homeland Security’s appeal from an immigration judge’s decision. The BIA denied Ye’s application for a fraud waiver under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(H). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s exercise of discretion. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). We dismiss the petition for review.

By statute, the agency’s decision whether to grant a fraud waiver is a matter of discretion. 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(H). Ye argues the agency did not “fully and fairly consider all relevant positive factors weighing” in favor of a fraud waiver and over-emphasized the negative factors weighing against a fraud waiver. See Matter of Tijam, 22 I. & N. Dec. 408, 412 (B.I.A. 1998) (stating that in deciding whether to exercise its discretion to grant a waiver of removability, the agency balances the “alien’s undesirability as a permanent resident with the social and humane considerations present,” and the adverse factors to be considered “may include the nature and underlying circumstances of the fraud or misrepresentation involved”). But these arguments, and all of Ye’s other arguments, are attempts to challenge the agency’s discretionary decision, particularly how it weighed the evidence, a matter over which we lack jurisdiction. See Vasquez v. Holder, 602 F.3d 1003, 1017 (9th Cir. 2010) (noting “we do not have jurisdiction to review the discretionary denial of a fraud waiver”); San Pedro v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1156, 1157 (9th Cir. 2005) (noting “we ... lack jurisdiction” to review a petition challenging an exercise of discretion under the fraud waiver statute).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. Each party shall bear its own costs of this appeal.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM **

Gui Sheng Ye petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision sustaining the Department of Homeland Security’s appeal from an immigration judge’s decision. The BIA denied Ye’s application for a fraud waiver under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(H). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s exercise of discretion. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). We dismiss the petition for review.

By statute, the agency’s decision whether to grant a fraud waiver is a matter of discretion. 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(H). Ye argues the agency did not “fully and fairly consider all relevant positive factors weighing” in favor of a fraud waiver and over-emphasized the negative factors weighing against a fraud waiver. See Matter of Tijam, 22 I. & N. Dec. 408, 412 (B.I.A. 1998) (stating that in deciding whether to exercise its discretion to grant a waiver of removability, the agency balances the “alien’s undesirability as a permanent resident with the social and humane considerations present,” and the adverse factors to be considered “may include the nature and underlying circumstances of the fraud or misrepresentation involved”). But these arguments, and all of Ye’s other arguments, are attempts to challenge the agency’s discretionary decision, particularly how it weighed the evidence, a matter over which we lack jurisdiction. See Vasquez v. Holder, 602 F.3d 1003, 1017 (9th Cir. 2010) (noting “we do not have jurisdiction to review the discretionary denial of a fraud waiver”); San Pedro v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1156, 1157 (9th Cir. 2005) (noting “we ... lack jurisdiction” to review a petition challenging an exercise of discretion under the fraud waiver statute).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. Each party shall bear its own costs of this appeal.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

692 F. App'x 823, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gui-ye-v-jefferson-sessions-ca9-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack