Manjit Singh Brar v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
AP/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MANJIT SINGH BRAR,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-70361
Agency No. A047-410-192
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: WALLACE, GOODWIN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Manjit Singh Brar, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
FILED
JAN 06 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

AP/Research 07-70361 2
review for substantial evidence the IJ’s factual findings, Damon v. Ashcroft, 360
F.3d 1084, 1088 (9th Cir. 2004), and for abuse of discretion the denial of a request
for a continuance, Biwot v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 1094, 1099 (9th Cir. 2005). We
deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Brar’s
marriage was not bona fide where Brar’s citizen-spouse testified she married Brar
for immigration purposes, she received $15,000 for marrying him and the couple
never resided together. See Damon, 360 F.3d at 1089 (test for a bona fide marriage
is whether the couple intended to establish a life together at the time they were
married); see also Bark v. INS, 511 F.2d 1200, 1201-02 (9th Cir. 1975) (conduct of
parties after marriage is relevant to show intent at time of marriage).
The IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying Brar a continuance. See De la
Cruz v. INS, 951 F.2d 226, 229 (9th Cir. 1991) (no error in denying continuance
where alien was ineligible for relief sought).
Brar’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --