UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1647
LILI AGNES DJEUKAM TASSI,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: November 17, 2014 Decided: April 6, 2015
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Danielle Beach-Oswald, BEACH-OSWALD IMMIGRATION LAW ASSOCIATES,
PC, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery,
Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Melissa Neiman-Kelting, Senior Litigation
Counsel, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Lili Agnes Djeukam Tassi, a native and citizen of Cameroon,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her appeal from the immigration
judge’s denial of Tassi’s applications for adjustment of status
and an 8 U.S.C. § 1182(i) (2012) waiver of inadmissibility, and
denying Tassi’s motion for remand.
Upon review of Tassi’s claims and the administrative
record, we deny the petition for review. The agency’s finding
that Tassi is inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i)
(2012) is clearly supported by Tassi’s admissions that she lied
before the immigration judge and that she submitted a fraudulent
document in support of her claims, thus distinguishing her case
from our recent decision in Xing Yang Yang v. Holder, 770 F.3d
294, 305 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The record does not reveal evidence
. . . that Yang made knowing and deliberate misrepresentations
to gain an immigration benefit.”). We also conclude that the
Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Tassi’s motion to
remand. See Onyeme v. INS, 146 F.3d 227, 234 (4th Cir. 1998)
(setting forth standard of review).
We therefore deny the petition substantially for the
reasons stated by the Board. In re: Tassi (B.I.A. Apr. 23,
2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
2
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
PETITION DENIED
3