FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 16 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHEIKH MOHAMMAD MAHMUD, No. 12-70157
Petitioner, Agency No. A077-294-479
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 10, 2015**
Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Sheikh Mohammad Mahmud, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from
an immigration judge’s decision finding him removable. We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and for substantial
*
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).
evidence the agency’s factual findings. Haile v. Holder, 658 F.3d 1122, 1125 (9th
Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review.
The agency correctly admitted into the record Mahmud’s former U.S. citizen
spouse’s testimony and prior sworn statements that their marriage was fraudulent
and that she married Mamud in exchange for money, and an immigration agent’s
testimony regarding her prior statements. See id. at 1128 (“The sole test for
admission of evidence [in immigration proceedings] is whether the evidence is
probative and its admission is fundamentally fair.” (citation omitted)). The record
belies Mahmud’s contention that his ex-wife’s statements were not given
voluntarily, where she voluntarily testified at his hearing in support of her prior
statements.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Mahmud is
removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(A) for being inadmissible under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) at the time of his admission to the United States due to his
having procured his admission through a fraudulent marriage, where the
government presented clear and convincing evidence that Mahmud did not intend
to establish a life with his ex-wife at the inception of their marriage. See Nakamoto
v. Ashcroft, 363 F.3d 874, 882 (9th Cir. 2004) (“In deciding whether [a petitioner]
entered into her marriage for the purpose of procuring her admission as an
2 12-70157
immigrant to the United States, the focus of our inquiry is whether [the petitioner]
and [her spouse] intended to establish a life together at the time they were
married.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 12-70157