Maria Gomez v. William Barr

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: August 28, 2019
• Docket: 15-72285
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 28 2019 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIA ANGELITA ALFONS GOMEZ; Nos. 15-72285 et al., 15-73435

Petitioners, Agency Nos. A099-799-895 A088-583-478 v. A088-583-479 A088-583-480 WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. MEMORANDUM*

On Petitions for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted August 13, 2019 Pasadena, California

Before: SCHROEDER and GRABER, Circuit Judges, and M. WATSON,** District Judge.

Petitioners Maria Gomez (“Gomez”), her husband, and their two children

petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision

affirming the immigration judge’s order finding Gomez removable. Gomez also

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Michael H. Watson, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, sitting by designation. appeals the BIA’s decision denying her motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petitions.

In 1994, Gomez sought to adjust status under section 245(i) of the

Immigration and Nationality Act as the unmarried daughter of a lawful permanent

resident. Although Gomez’s marriage certificate lists December 29, 1986, as her

date of marriage, she presented a decree from a Philippine court finding that her

marriage was invalid from the beginning because various formalities were not

followed in the marriage process.

The BIA correctly concluded that it was not required to give effect to the

Philippine court order. See Hendrix v. INS, 583 F.2d 1102, 1103 (9th Cir. 1978)

(per curiam) (quoting Matter of Wong, 16 I. & N. Dec. 87, 89 (B.I.A. 1977) (“[W]e

are not obliged to give retroactive effect to annulments so as to cure a violation of

law respecting entry into the United States.”)); Matter of Astorga, 17 I. & N. Dec.

1, 4 (B.I.A. 1979) (“[M]arriages declared void at inception, or annulled, will not

relate back to cure a ground of exclusion or deportation at the time of entry where

the alien entered the United States in an immigrant status dependent on [her] being

unmarried.”).

The BIA also permissibly found that Gomez’s arguments that her marriage

was invalid under Philippine law were unpersuasive in light of a visa petition that

2 Gomez filed in 1999 as the married daughter of a United States citizen. In support

of that petition, Gomez submitted an affidavit indicating that she married her

husband in 1986. Gomez has sought “to decide unilaterally whether . . . her

marriage was valid or invalid according to the goal . . . she hopes to achieve.”

Hendrix, 583 F.2d at 1104. The BIA was correct in not permitting such a result.

PETITIONS DENIED.