UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1536
BUNTHAN THAN CHHAY,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: December 15, 2010 Decided: January 11, 2011
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Irena I. Karpinski, LAW OFFICES OF IRENA I. KARPINSKI,
Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General, Paul Fiorino, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jessica R. C.
Malloy, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bunthan Than Chhay, a native and citizen of Cambodia,
entered the United States on a conditional basis as a lawful
permanent resident based on his marriage to a United States
citizen, Mey Chang. The couple later divorced. On June 16,
2005, Chhay filed a Form I-751, Petition to Remove the
Conditions on Residence, and applied for a good faith waiver of
the requirement that he and Chang jointly file the I-751
petition. The immigration judge concluded that Chhay failed to
demonstrate that he entered into his marriage in good faith and
therefore failed to meet the conditions for a waiver of the
joint filing requirement. The judge denied the I-751 petition,
and the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissed Chhay’s
subsequent appeal. Chhay now petitions this court for review.
We review de novo the agency’s finding that Chhay’s
evidence failed to satisfy the legal standard of what
constitutes a good faith marriage. See Ibrahimi v. Holder, 566
F.3d 758, 764 (8th Cir. 2009). The central question is whether
Chhay and Chang intended to establish a life together at the
time they were married. See id.; In re Laureano, 19 I. & N.
Dec. 1, 2-3 (B.I.A. 1983).
We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and
conclude that the evidence clearly supports the determination
that Chhay did not intend to establish a marital life with Chang
2
at the time he entered into the marriage. We have also
considered Chhay’s claims that the immigration judge erred in
admitting certain hearsay evidence and in excluding a proposed
witness and find these arguments to be without merit. We
therefore deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by
the Board. See In re Chhay (B.I.A. Apr. 15, 2010). We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3