Opinion
No. 15-1934
04-01-2016
NARDEV SINGH, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
William H. Berger, BERGER AND BERGER, Buffalo, New York, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director, Jeremy M. Bylund, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
UNPUBLISHED On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. William H. Berger, BERGER AND BERGER, Buffalo, New York, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director, Jeremy M. Bylund, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Nardev Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge's decision finding him removable pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(G)(ii) (2012). We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the agency properly determined that Singh is removable from the United States as an alien who failed or refused to fulfill the marital agreement that was made for the purpose of procuring his admission as an immigrant. See § 1227(a)(1)(G)(ii). We further conclude that substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility finding, see Tewabe v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 533, 538 (4th Cir. 2006), and that Singh cannot demonstrate a violation of his due process rights as he fails to show the requisite prejudice. See Anim v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 243, 256 (4th Cir. 2008).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Singh (B.I.A. July 22, 2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED