FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 10 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BALWINDER SINGH, No. 09-71256
Petitioner, Agency No. A047-070-811
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 20, 2011 **
Before: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Balwinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the IJ’s determination that an
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
alien is removable. Nakamoto v. Ashcroft, 363 F.3d 874, 881 (9th Cir. 2004). We
deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Singh entered his
marriage for the purpose of procuring an immigration benefit where Singh’s
former U.S. citizen spouse testified that their marriage was fraudulent and that she
married Singh in exchange for renumeration. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(A) and
(G)(i); 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i); see also Nakamoto, 363 F.3d at 882 (relevant
inquiry for fraud determination is whether parties intended at the time they married
to establish a life together).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s conclusion that Singh’s
conditional status was terminated. See 8.U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(D)(i). Because he
was not granted a waiver under 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4) and he did not appeal from
the Citizenship and Immigration Services’ denial of his waiver, his challenge to
that conclusion is not availing. See id.§ 1227(a)(1)(D)(ii).
We lack jurisdiction over Singh’s contention regarding the denial of his
motion to terminate because he did not raise that challenge before the BIA, and
therefore has not exhausted his remedies. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674,
678 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 09-71256