FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 23 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SOFIK ASOYAN, No. 15-70781
Petitioner, Agency No. A056-097-917
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 18, 2017**
Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Sofik Asoyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration
judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
for substantial evidence the agency’s determination that an alien is removable for
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
marriage fraud, and review de novo questions of law. Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d
1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Asoyan is
removable because she procured admission through a fraudulent marriage. See 8
U.S.C. §§ 1227(a)(1)(A), 1182(a)(6)(C)(i); Nakamoto v. Ashcroft, 363 F.3d 874,
881-82 (9th Cir. 2004) (in determining whether an alien entered into a marriage for
the purpose of procuring admission into the United States, the focus of the inquiry
is whether the couple intended to establish a life together at the time they were
married). Contrary to Asoyan’s contentions, the agency properly relied, in part, on
the state court judgment granting an annulment based on fraud, and Asoyan
acknowledged she had the opportunity to contest those annulment proceedings.
Nakamoto, 363 F.3d at 883 (although the annulment itself was not dispositive, the
state court’s finding that consent to the marriage had been obtained by fraud was
entitled to full faith and credit).
Asoyan’s contention that the IJ erred in weighing the evidence presented
based on her own assumptions and biases is unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 15-70781