Danial Gafre Fitiwi v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DANIAL GAFRE FITIWI,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-67
Agency No.
A062-367-879
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 20, 2023**
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER, CALLAHAN, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
* 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 25 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Daniel Gafre Fitiwi, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal from the
denial of his application for a “good faith marriage” waiver under 8 U.S.C.
§1186a(c)(4)(B). Under that statute, Petitioner had the burden of establishing
eligibility for the waiver by showing his marriage was entered into in good
faith. See Hammad v. Holder, 603 F.3d 536, 543 (9th Cir. 2010).
The denial was premised on numerous inconsistencies in the evidence
Petitioner presented, and on his explanations, which the Immigration Judge
found to be implausible. Many of the inconsistencies concerned whether
Petitioner considered the two children born during the marriage to be his
biological children. There was also a notable lack of any family photographs
with the children. The conclusion that Petitioner failed to establish he entered
into his marriage in good faith is supported by substantial evidence. See Damon
v. Ashcroft, 360 F.3d 1084, 1088 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating that whether a
noncitizen entered into a marriage in good faith to be eligible for the waiver is
an intrinsically fact-specific question that is reviewed under the substantial
evidence standard). There is no evidence compelling a contrary finding.
Because the reasons for rejecting Petitioner’s explanations are clear, the
Supreme Court’s recent decision in Garland v. Dai, 141 S.Ct. 1669 (2021), does
not require remand. See id. at 1681.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --