NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUN 02 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
KULWANT KAUR; et al., No. 12-71522
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A075-304-539
A075-304-540
v. A075-304-541
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
MEMORANDUM*
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 11, 2015**
San Francisco, California
Before: PAEZ and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges and KOBAYASHI,*** District Judge.
Kulwant Kaur, Manpreet Kaur, and Gurpreet Singh petition for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal of the
*
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).
***
The Honorable Leslie E. Kobayashi, District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the District of Hawaii, sitting by designation.
Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision to reopen removal proceedings and terminate
their grant of asylum on the basis of fraud. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. §
1252(a)(1). For the following reasons, we deny the petition for review.
1. The IJ did not abuse her discretion in granting the Department of
Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) motion to reopen removal proceedings. See
Valeriano v. Gonzales, 474 F.3d 669, 672 (9th Cir. 2007). The DHS submitted
with its motion an affidavit from a United States Citizenship and Immigration
Services (“USCIS”) officer who had reviewed Petitioners’ immigration documents
and interviewed Petitioners’ family and neighbors. From this investigation, the
officer concluded that Petitioner Kulwant Kaur (“Kaur”) had falsely asserted in her
1997 asylum application that her husband was missing in India when, in fact, he
was residing in the United States and even attended her 1998 asylum hearing.
Because Petitioners’ asylum claim was predicated on Kaur’s husband’s
disappearance, the IJ did not err in finding that the officer’s affidavit demonstrated
a likelihood of success on the merits. See Matter of A-N- & R-M-N-, 22 I. & N.
Dec. 953, 955-56 (B.I.A. 1999).
2. Substantial evidence supported the IJ’s decision to terminate Petitioners’
grant of asylum. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). The DHS established by a
preponderance of the evidence that Petitioners’ grant of asylum had been obtained
2
through fraud. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.24(a)(1), (f). The IJ did not err in crediting the
USCIS officer’s testimony nor in drawing a negative inference from Petitioners’
failure to testify.
DENIED.
3