Roshanbanu Madatali Shivani v. ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1652
ROSHANBANU MADATALI SHIVANI,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A72-166-891)
Submitted: January 23, 2006 Decided: February 17, 2006
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thanos Kanellakos, York, Pennsylvania, for Petitioner. Peter D.
Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright,
Assistant Director, Larry P. Cote, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

*Shivani does not challenge the immigration judge’s finding
that she is removable pursuant to 8 U.S.C.A. § 1227(a)(1)(B) (West
Supp. 2005) as an alien who remained longer than permitted after
admission as a nonimmigrant.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Roshanbanu Madatali Shivani, a native and citizen of
India, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals affirming, without opinion, the immigration judge’s
decision finding her removable from the United States as an alien
who has falsely represented herself to be a U.S. citizen, and as an
alien who engaged in unauthorized employment. * See 8 U.S.C.A.
§§ 1227(a)(1)(C)(I), (a)(3)(D) (West 1999 & Supp. 2005). We have
reviewed the record and the immigration judge’s decision and find
that reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence supports the
immigration judge’s findings. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(3)(A)
(2000). Notably, the record reveals that Shivani admitted in a
sworn statement that she applied for a U.S. passport by submitting
a fraudulent Maryland birth certificate and that she worked as a
seamstress for her local church at a rate of $5.00 per garment. We
therefore uphold the immigration judge’s finding that Shivani is
removable on all charges and 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

-- 2 of 2 --