Govindan Kaveri v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing 511158408

Govindan Kaveri v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Doc. 511158408

Case: 09-60524

Document: 00511158408

Page: 1

Date Filed: 06/29/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 09-60524 S u m m a r y Calendar June 29, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

G O V I N D A N KAVERI, P e titio n e r v. E R I C H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, R espon dent

P e tit io n for Review of an Order of the B o a r d of Immigration Appeals B I A No. A076 135 341

Before WIENER, CLEMENT and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* G o v in d a n Kaveri, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) dismissal of his appeal from the I m m ig r a t i o n Judge's (IJ) order of removal, which pretermitted a decision on adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a). Kaveri does not challenge the d e t e r m in a t io n s that he is removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B) as an alien w h o was admitted as a nonimmigrant but remained longer than permitted, or t h a t he is ineligible for a waiver of removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(H).
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 09-60524

Document: 00511158408 Page: 2 No. 09-60524

Date Filed: 06/29/2010

O u r review of the denial of Kaveri's Section 1255(a) application is limited t o "constitutional claims or questions of law." 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i),

(a)(2)(D). The Attorney General has the discretion to adjust the status of an alien w h o was inspected and admitted into the United States to that of a lawful p e r m a n e n t resident "if (1) the alien makes an application for such adjustment, ( 2 ) the alien is eligible to receive an immigrant visa and is admissible to the U n ite d States for permanent residence, and (3) an immigrant visa is im m e d ia t e ly available to him at the time his application is filed." § 1255(a) (INA § 245(a)); 8 C.F.R. § 1245.1(a). In relevant part, the IJ determined that under 8 U.S.C. § 1154(c), Kaveri was not eligible to receive an immigrant visa because t h e evidence supported a determination by immigration authorities that Kaveri h a d entered into his first marriage for the purpose of evading the immigration la w s . Kaveri's arguments that the IJ's finding failed to properly apply BIA p r e c e d e n t or to properly allocate the burden of proof are unavailing. Kaveri does n o t argue that his second wife's immediate relative visa petition has been a p p r o v e d or that such a visa would be immediately available if he applied for a d ju s tm e n t . We find no legal error in the determination that Kaveri was

in e lig ib le for adjustment of status. Kaveri's petition for review is DENIED.

2