Rumei Huang v. MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RUMEI HUANG,
Petitioner,
v.
MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 16-72269
Agency No. A087-957-139
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 10, 2018**
University of Hawaii Manoa
Before: WARDLAW, BERZON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Rumei Huang (Huang), a native and citizen of China who resides in the
Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s
(IJ) finding of removability under U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) and denial of
* 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
FEB 12 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
administrative closure. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review factual findings for substantial evidence. Ming Dai v. Sessions, 884 F.3d
858, 866 (9th Cir. 2018). We deny the petition for review.
1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Huang is
removable. Huang argues that a CNMI umbrella permit would have given her
lawful status under 48 U.S.C. § 1806(e)(1), and thus would have precluded
institution of removal proceedings in August, 2010, and a finding of removability
in September, 2011. We need not determine whether an umbrella permit precludes
removal under § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). Even assuming it does, Huang submitted no
evidence that she had obtained such an umbrella permit. Huang submitted
evidence showing only that she had applied for an umbrella permit, but not that
one was ever approved or granted. Huang, therefore, did not meet her burden to
show admissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I).
2. The BIA did not err in denying Huang administrative closure pending
adjudication of her U.S. citizen spouse’s visa petition. Substantial evidence
supports the finding that Huang was ineligible for adjustment of status, as she had
not been admitted or paroled into the United States. Even if an individual with a
valid CNMI umbrella permit would have been eligible for adjustment of status,
Huang did not show that she had obtained an umbrella permit.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --