YOUNG CHO V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 15-73330 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 18 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT YOUNG JA CHO, AKA Young Ja Im, AKA Young Ja Kim, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-73330 Agency No. A089-627-351 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 11, 2017** Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Young Ja Cho, a native and citizen of South Korea, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application under 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4)(B) for waiver of the joint filing requirement to remove the * 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). conditional basis of her lawful permanent resident status. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s denial of a waiver under 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4)(B). Damon v. Ashcroft, 360 F.3d 1084, 1088 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Cho’s application for a waiver under 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4)(B), where the record does not compel reversal of the agency’s determination that Cho failed to establish that she entered into her marriage in good faith. See 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4); Oropeza-Wong v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1135, 1148 (9th Cir. 2005). We reject Cho’s contentions that the agency failed to consider or discuss relevant evidence. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency need not write an exegesis on every contention); Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner did not overcome the presumption that the BIA did review the record). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 15-73330

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.