Mohammad Furqan v. Loretta Lynch
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A072-167-490. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999722083].. [15-1682]
Appeal: 15-1682
Doc: 23
Filed: 12/21/2015
Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1682
MOHAMMAD FURQAN,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted:
December 17, 2015
Decided:
December 21, 2015
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed in part, denied in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Marc Seguinót, SEGUINÓT & ASSOCIATES, PC, Fairfax, Virginia, for
Petitioner.
Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant
Attorney
General,
Anthony
C.
Payne,
Assistant
Director,
Jennifer Paisner Williams, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-1682
Doc: 23
Filed: 12/21/2015
Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Mohammad
Furqan,
a
native
and
citizen
of
Pakistan,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals
(Board)
dismissing
his
appeal
from
the
immigration
judge’s (IJ) decision denying his application for a waiver of
inadmissibility and denying the motion to remand.
We dismiss in
part and deny in part the petition for review.
Any alien who “willfully misrepresent[s] a material fact,
seeks to procure (or has sought to procure or has procured) a
visa, other documentation, or admission into the United States
or
other
benefit
§ 1182(a)(6)(C)(i)
.
.
.
is
(2012).
An
inadmissible.”
alien
ineligible for adjustment of status.
An
inadmissible
alien
may
be
who
is
8
U.S.C.
inadmissible
is
8 U.S.C. § 1255(a)(2012).
eligible
for
a
waiver
of
inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(i)(1) (2012), if he shows
that his removal would be an extreme hardship to a qualifying
relative.
“No
court
shall
have
jurisdiction
to
review
a
decision or action of the Attorney General regarding a waiver
under” this section.
U.S.C.
8 U.S.C. § 1182(i)(2) (2012); see also 8
§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i)
(2012)
(“no
court
shall
have
jurisdiction to review [] any judgment regarding the granting of
relief under [§ 1182(i)]”).
The court retains jurisdiction to
consider constitutional claims or questions of law.
§ 1252(a)(2)(D) (2012).
2
8 U.S.C.
Appeal: 15-1682
Doc: 23
“[T]he
Filed: 12/21/2015
jurisdictional
Pg: 3 of 4
bar
of
8
U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(B)
applies where the basis for the discretionary decision [to deny
a
motion
to
provision.”
remand]
addresses
the
merits
of
an
enumerated
Sorcia v. Holder, 643 F.3d 117, 126 (4th Cir. 2011)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
Here, the Board concluded
that a remand was not warranted because Furqan did not submit
sufficient evidence to establish prima facie eligibility for a
waiver of inadmissibility.
inadmissibility
§ 1252(a)(2)(B).
is
one
The statute authorizing a waiver of
of
the
enumerated
provisions
under
Because the Board’s decision denying Furqan’s
motion to remand was based on his eligibility for the waiver, we
do
not
have
jurisdiction
to
review
the
decision
constitutional claims and questions of law.
except
for
Because Furqan does
not raise a constitutional claim or a question of law concerning
the denial of the motion to remand, we dismiss in part the
petition for review.
The Attorney General has the burden of showing by clear and
convincing
evidence
that
Furqan
willfully
misrepresented
a
material fact seeking to procure an immigration benefit.
Xing
Yang Yang v. Holder, 770 F.3d 294, 303 (4th Cir. 2014).
“[A]
misrepresentation
voluntary.”
Id.
is
willful
if
it
was
deliberate
and
A material misrepresentation “must be of the
sort that would affect the ultimate immigration decision.”
Id.
at
for
305.
We
review
a
material
3
misrepresentation
finding
Appeal: 15-1682
Doc: 23
Filed: 12/21/2015
substantial evidence.
Pg: 4 of 4
Id. at 304.
After reviewing the record
and considering Furqan’s arguments, we conclude that substantial
evidence
supports
the
finding
that
Furqan
willfully
made
a
material misrepresentation of fact that made him inadmissible
and ineligible for adjustment of status. *
Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review from that
part of the Board’s order denying Furqan’s motion to remand and
deny the petition for review from that part of the Board’s order
dismissing his appeal from the IJ’s decision.
We dispense with
oral
contentions
argument
adequately
because
presented
in
the
the
facts
and
materials
legal
before
this
court
are
and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED IN PART;
DENIED IN PART
*
Insofar
as
Furqan
argues
that
he
retracted
his
misrepresentation
in
a
timely
manner,
we
are
without
jurisdiction to review this argument because Furqan did not
exhaust the argument by raising it on appeal to the Board.
8
U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2012); Tiscareno-Garcia v. Holder, 780 F.3d
205, 210 (4th Cir. 2015) (alien who does not raise claim to the
Board fails to exhaust administrative remedies).
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?