*fn2,The opinion of the court was delivered by: Wood, Circuit Judge.,RICARDO YONZON CALMA, PETITIONER, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, RESPONDENT. OLEH KHOMYSHYN, PETITIONER, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, RESPONDENT." />

Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ricardo Yonzon Calma v. Eric H. Holder

December 5, 2011 *fn2

RICARDO YONZON CALMA, PETITIONER,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, RESPONDENT.
OLEH KHOMYSHYN, PETITIONER,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, RESPONDENT.



Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. No. A026 702 335: Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. No. A088 187 224

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Wood, Circuit Judge.

ARGUED JUNE 14, 2011

SUBMITTED JUNE 14, 2011*fn1

OPINION PUBLISHED DECEMBER 13, 2011

DECIDEDDECEMBER 5, 2011ééé

OPINION PUBLISHED DECEMBER 13, 2011

Before POSNER, ROVNER, and WOOD, Circuit Judges.

The petitioners in these consoli- dated cases, Ricardo Calma and Oleh Khomyshyn, have a great deal in common. Both have been in the United States for many years without permission, and each would like to adjust his status to that of lawful permanent resi- dent through relatives who are legitimately in the United States. When the time came for an Immigration Judge (IJ) to issue a decision, each was found ineligible for perma- nent residence because of the lack of an approved family- relative petition, Form I-130. Confronted with that obstacle, they asked the IJs to continue the removal proceedings, but the IJs denied those requests and ordered removal. We have consolidated their petitions for review. Although we are satisfied that we have jurisdiction over those petitions, we find no abuse of discretion in the judges' rulings and thus deny both petitions.

I

A

Calma is a citizen of the Philippines who came to the United States as a temporary worker in 1982. In 1986 he married Pamela Fuoss, a U.S. citizen, and she filed an I- 130 petition on his behalf. But during her interview in support of the application and later in an affidavit, Fuoss admitted that she married Calma only so that he could remain in the United States. She withdrew her petition, prompting the legacy Immigration and Naturalization Services to place Calma in deportation proceedings before an IJ. After Calma failed to show up, the INS administratively closed the case in September 1987.

Calma reemerged 18 years later, in April 2005, when his son Roderick, a U.S. citizen, filed a second I-130 petition on his behalf. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) approved Roderick's petition in July of that year, and in September Calma moved to restore his earlier deporta- tion hearing (by this time called a removal proceeding) to the calendar. Calma indicated that once the proceeding was active again, he would apply for permanent residence based on his son's approved I-130 petition.

Calma's petition to restore the case was successful, though as we shall see, a Pyrrhic victory. IJ Zerbe held a deportation hearing, at which the judge found that Calma was deportable for overstaying his visa, as charged in the 1987 administrative-closure order. Calma informed the IJ that he was working to obtain an adjustment of status through his son. In response, the IJ continued the hearing for a year to give Calma time to apply for his adjustment of status and to give the government an opportunity to perform necessary background checks. At the next hearing, the government informed Calma that it intended to revoke his son's I-130 petition based on the fraudulent marriage in 1986. The IJ continued the matter a second time to await the resolution of the revocation proceedings.

The month before Calma's next hearing, DHS revoked Roderick's I-130 petition after concluding that Calma married Fuoss for immigration benefits. The agency determined that the rebuttal evidence that Calma submit- ted, including affidavits from Calma, his current wife, and the couple who arranged the sham marriage, failed to refute the 1987 affidavit filed by Fuoss admitting the fraud. DHS concluded that the 1986 marriage "was not valid for immigration purposes," and that Calma's fraud was a "good and sufficient" reason to deny his son's I- 130 petition. With the I-130 petition revoked, Calma no longer had a basis for seeking permanent residence in the United States. At that ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.