FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 02 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WALID HAWATMEH, No. 10-70533
Petitioner, Agency No. A072-252-008
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted December 4, 2013
Pasadena, California
Submission Deferred January 9, 2014
Resubmitted March 26, 2014
Before: D.W. NELSON, WARDLAW, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Walid Hawatmeh (Hawatmeh), a native and citizen of Jordan, petitions for
review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his
appeal of the ruling of an Immigration Judge (IJ) finding him removable under 8
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(A), and denying his request for a waiver of removal. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 12521 and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Hawatmeh is
removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(A). During his adjustment of status
interview, Hawatmeh willfully misrepresented the material fact that he had been
ordered deported. Although the interviewing officer did not testify before the IJ,
the presumption of regularity supports the BIA’s finding that the interviewing
officer properly inquired whether Hawatmeh had ever been deported. See Kohli v.
Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1061, 1068 (9th Cir. 2007). In addition, the BIA properly
inferred from Hawatmeh’s refusal to testify before the IJ about whether he was
asked this question that Hawatmeh knowingly made a false statement. See United
States v. Solano-Godines, 120 F.3d 957, 962 (9th Cir. 1997) (“Deportation
proceedings are civil proceedings, and in such proceedings an immigration judge
may draw an adverse inference from a defendant’s silence in response to
questioning.”) (citations omitted).
1
Although we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary denial of a
waiver of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(H), we have jurisdiction to
review whether the BIA considered improper factors in adjudicating Hawatmeh’s
waiver request. See Vasquez v. Holder, 602 F.3d 1003, 1018-19 (9th Cir. 2010).
2
Finally, the BIA properly considered the hardship to Hawatmeh and his
family when adjudicating his application for a waiver of inadmissibility under 8
U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(H). See Vasquez v. Holder, 602 F.3d 1003, 1018 (9th Cir.
2010) (“The question whether to exercise discretion favorably necessitates a
balancing of an alien’s undesirability as a permanent resident with the social and
humane considerations present. Favorable considerations may include evidence of
hardship to the alien or her family if deportation occurs.”) (citation and alterations
omitted).
Petition DENIED.
3