Opinion
No. 15-72566 No. 16-70620
10-17-2018
AOUA NATOMA OVERTON, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Agency No. A096-433-169 MEMORANDUM On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 15, 2018 San Francisco, California Before: HAWKINS and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and ROSENTHAL, District Judge.
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).
The Honorable Lee H. Rosenthal, Chief United States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas, sitting by designation. --------
Aoua Natoma Overton, a native and citizen of Mali, married Clark Overton in February 2007, and subsequently obtained conditional permanent residency. The spouses could have later petitioned jointly to remove the condition on Ms. Overton's residency. 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(1), (d)(2)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 216.2(b). But, in April 2009, they divorced, and Ms. Overton could not then remove the condition absent waiver of the joint petition requirement. 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(1), (c)(4); 8 C.F.R. § 216.5(a)(1).
An immigration judge ("IJ") denied Ms. Overton's application for the waiver and her alternative request for voluntary departure, and ordered her removed. The Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") dismissed her appeal and subsequently denied her motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction over her petitions for review from those BIA decisions under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petitions.
Substantial evidence supported the IJ's finding that Ms. Overton did not enter her marriage to Clark in good faith. See Oropeza-Wong v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1135, 1147 (9th Cir. 2005) (noting standard of review); 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4)(B); 8 C.F.R. § 216.5(a)(1)(ii). Most significantly, Ms. Overton had a total of eight children with another man before, during, and after her marriage to Clark. We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ's denial of voluntary departure. Oropeza-Wong, 406 F.3d at 1141.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining that Ms. Overton's motion to reopen offered no previously unavailable material evidence to support a purported fear of persecution if removed to Mali. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) (noting standard of review).
PETITIONS DENIED.