Ronald Magaoay Garcia 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 concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NHY/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RONALD MAGAOAY GARCIA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 05-74903
Agency No. A044-527-531
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Ronald Magaoay Garcia, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming an immigration
judge’s decision denying his application under 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4)(B) for a
FILED
FEB 25 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

NHY/Research 05-74903 2
waiver of the requirement to file a joint petition with his former spouse to remove
the conditional basis of his lawful permanent resident status. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s
finding of removability, Nakamoto v. Ashcroft, 363 F.3d 874, 882 (9th Cir. 2004)
and the agency’s order denying the waiver, Damon v. Ashcroft, 360 F.3d 1084,
1088 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Garcia is removable
because he failed to satisfy his burden of establishing that his marriage was entered
into in good faith since he did not submit sufficient documentation indicating that
he and his former spouse intended to establish a life together at the time of their
marriage. Cf. Damon, 360 F.3d at 1088-89 (evidence of joint insurance policies,
property leases, income tax forms or bank accounts, and shared residence was
substantial evidence of intent to establish a life together); see also 8 C.F.R.
§ 216.5(e)(2)(i)-(iv).
Petitioner’s remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --