## Facts

- Ysabel Contreras-Salinas, a Peruvian citizen, entered the United States in 1994 as a nonimmigrant visitor and married a U.S. citizen in 1994.
- In 1995, her status was adjusted to conditional permanent resident, after she obtained a fraud waiver under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(i)(1).
- As a conditional permanent resident, she was required to file a joint petition with her spouse to remove conditions and appear for an interview within the statutory period under 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(1).
- The couple separated in 1997, filed a joint petition later that year, divorced, and did not appear for the required interview.
- The joint petition was denied in 1999.
- In 1999, she applied for a “good faith marriage waiver” under 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4)(B).
- DHS denied the waiver in 2000 for failure to show the marriage was entered in good faith and initiated removal proceedings.
- An Immigration Judge denied the waiver and ordered removal; the BIA affirmed in 2008.
- Contreras-Salinas petitioned the Second Circuit for review, arguing the IJ failed to properly weigh material evidence of good faith.

## Issues

1. Whether the court of appeals has jurisdiction to review the BIA’s affirmance of the denial of a good-faith marriage waiver when the petition challenges only the IJ’s credibility determinations and the weight assigned to evidence.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit dismissed the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction.
- The court held that the petitioner’s claim attacked the IJ’s assessment of credibility and evidentiary weight, matters committed by statute to the Attorney General’s sole discretion in the good-faith waiver context.
- The court concluded the petition did not present a reviewable constitutional claim or question of law.

## Legal Principles

- Under 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4)(B), the Attorney General may grant a waiver of the joint filing/interview requirement if the noncitizen demonstrates the marriage was entered into in good faith.
- Section 1186a(c)(4) assigns to the Attorney General “sole discretion” over what evidence is credible and the weight given to that evidence.
- 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) bars judicial review of specified discretionary decisions, while preserving review of constitutional claims and questions of law.
- A petition that merely disputes factfinding, credibility determinations, or how evidence was weighed does not raise a “question of law” and is not reviewable under the statutory exceptions.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit dismissed the petition because the challenge was limited to the immigration authorities’ credibility and evidentiary-weight determinations in a good-faith marriage waiver proceeding, which Congress committed to the Attorney General’s sole discretion and insulated from appellate review absent a genuine constitutional claim or legal question.


Contreras-Salinas v. Holder, 585 F.3d 710 (2d Cir. 2009)