KASHANIAN v. BARR (2020)

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner Kamran Kashanian, a native and citizen of Iran, became a conditional permanent resident through his marriage to a U.S. citizen. Kashanian and his wife subsequently separated, and he sought a waiver of the requirement that they jointly file a petition to remove the conditional basis of his permanent resident status. See Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 216(c)(4)(B), 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4)(B). The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) initially granted the waiver, but later reopened removal proceedings, exercised her discretion to deny the waiver, and ordered Kashanian removed from the United States. Kashanian’s appeal was dismissed by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). We deny Kashanian’s petition for review.

Kashanian’s sole argument on appeal is that, once the IJ decided he was statutorily eligible for the waiver because of his “good faith” marriage, the IJ did not have discretion to deny the waiver. See INA § 216(c)(4)(B), 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4)(B). This argument is foreclosed by our decision in Singh v. Holder, 591 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2010). In Singh, we explained that “granting a waiver involves two steps: First, the Attorney General or his designee (here, the BIA) must determine whether the petitioner has demonstrated that he meets one of three alternative criteria. See § 216(c)(4)(A)-(C). Second, if the petitioner has so demonstrated eligibility, the BIA ‘may’ grant the waiver. § 216(c)(4).” Id. at 1194. We stated that “[t]he second-order decision whether to grant a waiver is unambiguously ‘left to the discretion of the Attorney General.’ ” Id. (quoting Damon v. Ashcroft, 360 F.3d 1084, 1090 (9th Cir. 2004)).

Under Singh, the IJ could deny the waiver Kashanian sought as a matter of discretion. Kashanian’s only argument on appeal therefore fails.

PETITION DENIED.