REYNALDO VILLEGAS V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 17-71372 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JAN 13 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT REYNALDO DABU VILLEGAS, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-71372 Agency No. A086-966-185 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted January 9, 2020** San Francisco, California Before: WALLACE and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and LASNIK,*** District Judge. Reynaldo Villegas, a native and citizen of the Philippines, appeals from an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) adopting and affirming 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). *** The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik, United States District Judge for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation. Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application to remove the conditions on his permanent resident status and ordering him removed from the United States. The IJ concluded that the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) established by a preponderance of the evidence that the marriage between Villegas and U.S. citizen Fe Alvarez was not entered into in good faith. We hold that the agency’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and deny the petition for review. 1. Substantial evidence supported the IJ’s adverse credibility finding with respect to Villegas. The IJ based the adverse credibility finding in part on Villegas’s evasive testimony about whether he was paying child support to his exwife; his failure to disclose that Alvarez and his ex-wife “sometimes . . . give each other [business] referrals” when first asked about the relationship between the two women; and his unpersuasive explanation for why U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) officers found no sign that he lived at the residence that he and Alvarez purportedly shared. Villegas suggests that other portions of his testimony that the IJ relied on in support of its adverse credibility finding were inconsistent because he misunderstood the interpreter and is bad at testifying. But this contention is belied by the transcript of the proceedings. The IJ’s adverse credibility finding with respect to Alvarez was also supported by substantial evidence. Alvarez made statements that were internally 2 inconsistent, and, most notably, admitted that she lied to USCIS officers when they visited her residence. See Singh v. Holder, 643 F.3d 1178, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011) (“What matters is that the petitioner chose to lie to immigration authorities. That always counts as substantial evidence supporting an adverse credibility finding.”). 2. Substantial evidence supported the BIA’s determination that DHS met its burden of proving that Villegas and Alvarez did not enter into their marriage in good faith. In addition to the adverse credibility findings the BIA accepted from the IJ, the BIA based its determination on the following facts, among others: USCIS officers found no items belonging to Villegas and no pictures of Villegas at the residence that he and Alvarez purportedly shared; the landlord of Villegas’s exwife stated that Villegas had been living with his ex-wife and their children; and Villegas and Alvarez both admitted that they had separated but were waiting to divorce until Villegas’s immigration proceedings concluded. The documentary evidence that Villegas provided to show a bona fide marriage is outweighed by the substantial evidence that Villegas and Alvarez did not “intend[] to establish a life together at the time they were married.” Oropeza-Wong v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1135, 1148 (9th Cir. 2005). 3. Villegas’s claim that he was denied due process fails because he has not shown any prejudice resulting from his inability to cross-examine the USCIS officers who investigated his marriage. See Ram v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 1238, 1241 3 (9th Cir. 2008). Villegas does not contest the key findings of that investigation— that none of his belongings were found in the residence that he and Alvarez purportedly shared, that no pictures of him were found in that residence, and that his ex-wife’s landlord stated that Villegas had been living with his ex-wife and their children. Accordingly, Villegas has not shown that the “outcome of the proceedings” was potentially affected. Id. at 1242. PETITION DENIED. 4
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.
