Elvira Abgaryan 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 finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Barbara M.G. Lynn, U.S. District Judge for the***
Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation.
1
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ELVIRA ABGARYAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 05-74894
Agency No. A076-356-840
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 9, 2009**
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges, and LYNN, District***
Judge.
Petitioner Elvira Abgaryan (“Abgaryan”), a citizen of Armenia, seeks
FILED
DEC 11 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

The parties are familiar with the facts of this case and we repeat them1
here only as necessary.
2
cancellation of removal under the battered spouse provision of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (INA). INA § 240A(b)(2); 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2). We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and we deny the petition for cancellation
of removal.1
Although the Attorney General has discretion whether to grant or deny an
application for cancellation of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2), we retain
jurisdiction to review an alien’s statutory eligibility for such relief. See Montero-
Martinez v. Ashcroft, 277 F.3d 1137, 1144-45 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that the
court retained jurisdiction to review the purely legal question of whether the
applicant’s adult daughter qualified as a “child” under section 240A(b)(1) and was
thus eligible for cancellation of removal). Thus, we have jurisdiction to review the
BIA’s determination that Abgaryan is ineligible for cancellation of removal under
section 240A(b)(2) because she failed to establish the validity of her marriage to a
United States citizen by showing that her first marriage had ended in death or
divorce.
We conclude that the record does not compel a conclusion contrary to the
BIA’s. See I.N.S. v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992). The

-- 2 of 3 --

We do not review the IJ’s adverse credibility finding, since the BIA2
did not address it. See Hanna v. Keisler, 506 F.3d 933, 937 (9th Cir. 2007).
3
government’s expert witness testified that the death certificate Abgaryan presented
was fraudulent. Furthermore, the United States embassy in Armenia submitted a
report stating the divorce decree Abgaryan proffered was false. Abgaryan has
pointed to no evidence contradicting these findings or otherwise compelling the
conclusion that her subsequent marriage to a United States citizen was legally
valid.2
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --