Uritha Nualsanit v. MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
URITHA NUALSANIT,
Petitioner,
v.
MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 15-70272
Agency No. A098-763-454
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 25, 2019**
Before: TROTT, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Uritha Nualsanit, a native and citizen of Thailand, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision finding her removable for marriage fraud
under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) and 1227(a)(1)(A). We have jurisdiction under
* 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
JAN 29 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence. Nakamoto v. Ashcroft, 363
F.3d 874, 881 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that the government
carried its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that Nualsanit
committed marriage fraud. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(3)(A); Nakamoto, 363 F.3d at
882. The agency properly weighed the strength of the evidence submitted by the
government and by Nualsanit and did not improperly shift the burden of proof to
her; nor did the IJ err by accepting as true her ex-husband’s description of the
marriage over the petitioner’s. Because the burden of proof was not on Nualsanit,
the IJ was not required to make an explicit finding regarding her credibility.
Substantial evidence, including the IJ’s observation of petitioner’s ex-husband’s
demeanor, supports the IJ’s finding that the ex-husband was credible, and the IJ
and BIA specifically addressed his possible motivation to lie. See Nakamoto, 363
F.3d at 881.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --