YOUNG JA CHO, AKA Young Ja Im, AKA Young Ja Kim v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YOUNG JA CHO, AKA Young Ja Im,
AKA Young Ja Kim,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-73330
Agency No. A089-627-351
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 11, 2017**
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Young Ja Cho, a native and citizen of South Korea, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying her application under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1186a(c)(4)(B) for waiver of the joint filing requirement to remove 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).
FILED
APR 18 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-73330
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). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Cho’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 Cho failed to establish that she entered
into her marriage in good faith. See 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4); Oropeza-Wong v.
Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1135, 1148 (9th Cir. 2005).
We reject Cho’s contentions that the agency failed to consider or discuss
relevant evidence. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010)
(agency need not write an exegesis on every contention); Fernandez v. Gonzales,
439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner did not overcome the presumption
that the BIA did review the record).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --