Christianh Olubunmi Sutton v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHRISTIANH OLUBUNMI SUTTON,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-73472
Agency No. A095-701-670
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 26, 2016**
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Christianh Olubunmi Sutton, a native and citizen of the United Kingdom,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying her
application under 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4)(B) for waiver of the joint filing
FILED
AUG 02 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

requirement to remove the 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), as well as the agency’s adverse
credibility determinations, Oropeza-Wong v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1135,1147-48
(9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Sutton’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 petitioner failed to establish, through
credible testimony or documentary evidence, that her marriage was entered into in
good faith. See id. at 1148 (adverse credibility determination “based on specific,
cogent reasons” upheld (citation, quotation marks and alterations omitted)); 8
U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4) (to establish eligibility for this waiver, the alien must
demonstrate that the qualifying marriage was entered into in good faith by the alien
spouse).
Contrary to Sutton’s contention, her explanations for certain inconsistencies
in the record do not compel reversal of the agency’s determinations. See Lata v
INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000) (alien’s explanation for discrepancy in
14-73472 2

-- 2 of 3 --

evidence, even if plausible, did not compel reversal of adverse credibility
determination).
Sutton’s contention that the IJ based his determinations on impermissible
factors is not supported by the record.
Sutton’s contention that the agency failed to allow her the opportunity to
seek a second waiver under 8 U.S.C. § 1186(c)(4) is without merit, where she
failed to file any request to the agency for a continuance or stay of proceedings for
that purpose.
The BIA failed to address Sutton’s contention that her former attorney
provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to pursue a hardship waiver.
We remand for the BIA to address this claim. See Sagaydak v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d
1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005) (“IJs and the BIA are not free to ignore arguments
raised by a petitioner”).
Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;
REMANDED.
14-73472 3

-- 3 of 3 --