NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 13a0904n.06
No. 12-4110
FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Oct 22, 2013
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
JAMIL A. MUJALI, )
)
Petitioner, )
) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW
v. ) FROM THE UNITED STATES
) BOARD OF IMMIGRATION
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, ) APPEALS
)
Respondent. )
)
BEFORE: COLE, KETHLEDGE, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. Jamil A. Mujali, a citizen of Yemen, petitions through counsel for review
of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from a decision of an
immigration judge (IJ) denying his application to waive the joint filing requirement to remove the
conditional basis of his permanent resident status. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees
that oral argument is not needed. Therefore, the motion for oral argument is denied.
Mujali was born in Yemen in 1970. He entered this country in 1995, and lived in New York
with his brother. In 1997, he moved to Michigan, where he married a United States citizen. He was
granted conditional permanent residence status on the basis of the marriage. Mujali’s wife divorced
him in 1998. Therefore, he was required to seek a waiver of the joint filing requirement to remove
the conditional basis of his permanent resident status under 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4)(A) and (B),
arguing that he entered into his marriage in good faith, and that his removal will result in extreme
hardship. Mujali remarried in 2000 and has three children from his second marriage.
No. 12-4110
Mujali v. Holder
A hearing was held before an IJ, at which Mujali and several witnesses testified. Mujali
moved for a subpoena to require the attendance of his first wife, which was granted, but she did not
appear. Mujali testified that he approached someone he met at his mosque about arranging a
marriage for him, and his first wife was proposed as a potential wife. Mujali testified that they
married in May 1997 and that he moved into his in-laws’ home, although he continued to make trips
to New York, where he had lived previously. He did not get along with his in-laws, and sought to
move out with his wife to their own place, but her parents would not agree. After approximately six
months, he moved back to New York, where he obtained work and an apartment, and asked his wife
to join him. However, he learned that she had filed for divorce and subsequently remarried. Mujali
offered the testimony of witnesses who arranged the marriage and neighbors to corroborate his
account, as well as affidavits from his former brother-in-law, father-in-law, and wife.
The IJ found that Mujali had not established that his first marriage was in good faith. She
noted discrepancies between Mujali’s statements and testimony, and those of his witnesses,
concerning whether he met his wife before their wedding day, what kind of dowry contract was
involved, and when he learned of the divorce. The IJ also found it critical that Mujali and his wife
did not have any joint assets, and that he had no pictures of the two of them. Finally, the IJ noted
that Mujali’s ex-wife had not appeared for the hearing despite the issuance of a subpoena, and that
she had at one point given a statement denying that they had ever lived together as husband and
wife, but that she only heard from Mujali when he needed something for his immigration
proceedings. The IJ also found that Mujali had not established that he would suffer extreme
hardship if he was removed to Yemen. Therefore, the IJ ordered his removal. The BIA agreed with
the IJ’s decision and dismissed his appeal.
-2-
No. 12-4110
Mujali v. Holder
Before this court, Mujali challenges only the finding that he did not establish that his first
marriage was entered into in good faith. He argues that he was denied the right to confront his ex-
wife and that the IJ should have done more to enforce the subpoena issued for her presence.
Mujali takes issue with the IJ’s consideration of his ex-wife’s affidavit denying that they ever
lived together as husband and wife. However, he did not object to the admission of that affidavit
before the IJ, thus the argument is waived. See DeOcasio v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 105, 107 (1st Cir.
2004). Furthermore, any error in the IJ’s consideration of his ex-wife’s affidavit has not been shown
to have resulted in prejudice affecting the outcome of the proceeding. See Boadi v. Holder, 706 F.3d
854, 859 (7th Cir. 2013); Lin v. Holder, 565 F.3d 971, 979 (6th Cir. 2009). The IJ gave several other
reasons for finding Mujali’s testimony incredible, including that it conflicted with his previous
statements and his witnesses’ testimony on several important points, that he lacked any of the
normal corroborative evidence to demonstrate a good faith marriage, and that he did not appear to
be interested in saving the marriage, as he left the state and did not return even when he learned that
his wife was filing for divorce. Although Mujali relies on Malave v. Holder, 610 F.3d 483, 487 (7th
Cir. 2010), for the proposition that the agency must use reasonable efforts to enforce a subpoena,
he did not make this argument before the IJ, thus it is waived. See DeOcasio, 375 F.3d at 107.
For all of these reasons, we find no error in the proceedings below, and we deny the petition
for review.
-3-