Samira Jadoo v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

AMENDED OPINION filed amending and superseding opinion dated June 9, 2015. Originating case number: A077-563-920. Copies to all parties.. [14-1822]

Appeal: 14-1822

Doc: 32

Filed: 09/10/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1822

SAMIRA YOUSSEF JADOO JADOO,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.

Submitted:

May 7, 2015
Amended:

Decided:

June 9, 2015

September 10, 2015

Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Hassan M. Ahmad, THE HMA LAW FIRM, PLLC, Herndon, Virginia, for
Petitioner. Joyce R. Branda, Acting Assistant Attorney General,
Edward Wiggers, Senior Litigation Counsel, Channah F. Norman,
Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-1822

Doc: 32

Filed: 09/10/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Samira

Youssef

Jadoo

Jadoo,

a

native

of

Israel

and

a

citizen of Palestine, petitions for review of an order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”), dismissing her appeal
from the immigration judge’s order finding her removable because
her

conditional

terminated

and

lawful
she

permanent

was

not

resident

eligible

(“LPR”)

for

a

status

waiver

was

under

Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 237(a)(1)(H), 8 U.S.C.
§ 1227(a)(1)(H) (2012), known as the “fraud waiver.”

We deny

the petition for review.
Whether

Jadoo

was

eligible

for

question of law we review de novo.
243, 251 (4th Cir. 2008).

the

fraud

waiver

is

a

Saintha v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d

The Board held that, even assuming

that Jadoo’s adjustment of status qualified as an “admission,”
she

was

not

eligible

for

the

fraud

waiver

because

she

was

removable, not for fraud, but for failing to file the petition
to remove the conditional basis of her LPR status.

We need not

make such an assumption, because this Court has held that “the
statutory definition of ‘admission’ does not include adjustment
of status.”

Aremu v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 450 F.3d 578, 581

(4th Cir. 2006); see Bracamontes v. Holder, 675 F.3d 380, 386
(4th

Cir.

2012).

However,

even

if

we

were

to

assume

that

Jadoo’s adjustment of status was an “admission,” we agree with

2

Appeal: 14-1822

Doc: 32

Filed: 09/10/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

the Board that Jadoo was not ordered removed because she engaged
in fraud or misrepresentation.

See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(H).

The Board’s recent opinion in Matter of Agour, 26 I. & N. Dec.
566

(B.I.A.

2015),

does

not

alter

the

fact

that

Jadoo

is

ineligible for the fraud waiver.
Further,

we

conclude

that

the

Board

discretion in denying the motion to remand.
431 F.3d 400, 408 (4th Cir. 2005).
Jadoo

relies

is

both

unpublished

did

not

abuse

its

Obioha v. Gonzales,

The Board opinion on which
and

arises

from

another

circuit, and as such does not compel the Board to grant the
requested relief.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.

We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

the

Court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

3