NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 2 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CIPRIAN MATEI VLAD and EVELYN No. 16-70331
KLARA GRIM, AKA Evelyn Grim-Smout,
Agency Nos. A089-331-239
Petitioners, A089-421-072
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 26, 2017**
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Ciprian Matei Vlad and Evelyn Klara Grim, natives and citizens of
Romania, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
*
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).
factual findings, and review de novo questions of law. Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d
1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that petitioners are
removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) due to each having procured a visa
through a fraudulent marriage, where the government presented clear and
convincing evidence that they did not intend to establish a life with their respective
United States citizen spouses at the inception of their marriages. See 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; this court must affirm the IJ’s ruling unless
the evidence is “so compelling that no reasonable fact finder could fail to find the
facts were as [the alien] alleged”).
To the extent petitioners contend the agency erred in considering evidence
after the time of their respective marriages, this contention fails because such
evidence may “bear on the subjective intent of the parties at the time they were
married.” Oropeza-Wong v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1135, 1148 (9th Cir. 2005)
(citation omitted).
Petitioners’ contention that the BIA improperly shifted the burden of proof
2 16-70331
onto them is not supported by the record.
We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ unexhausted contentions that
they were not given a proper individualized inquiry, and that the IJ improperly
shifted the burden of proof onto them. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part, DISMISSED in part.
3 16-70331