United States Third Circuit

Reset A A Font size: Print

Bradley v. US Attorney General, 08-4184

Petition for review, by a citizen and national of New Zealand, of a final removal order of the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, is denied where: 1) the evidence is more than sufficient to prove petitioner signed a VWP waiver; 2) petitioner cannot invalidate his removal order as he cannot demonstrate he was "substantially prejudiced" by his allegedly unknowing waiver; and 3) petitioner is not entitled to purse a marriage-based adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. section 1255(c)(4), because although he was once statutorily eligible under section 1255(c)(4), he may not after the expiration of his 90-day stay, adjust his status as a defense to removal.

Appellate Information

  • Argued 03/11/2010
  • Decided 04/22/2010
  • Published 04/22/2010

Judges

  • Before AMBRO, SMITH and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges.

Court

  • United States Third Circuit

Counsel

  • For Appellant:
  • Haroutyun Asatrian, Esq. (Argued), Strasser Asatrian, LLC, Newark, NJ, for Petitioner.

  • For Appellees:
  • Michael F. Hertz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Carl H. McIntyre, Jr., Assistant Director, Office of Immigration Litigation, Gary J. Newkirk, Esq. (Argued), Stephen F. Day, Esq., Justin R. Markel, Esq., United States Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Copied to clipboard