Senik Epremian v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SENIK EPREMIAN,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-73205
Agency No. A089-503-605
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 12, 2018**
Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Senik Epremian, a native of Armenia and citizen of Slovakia, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1186a(c)(4)(B) for waiver of the joint filing requirement to remove the
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUN 18 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 16-73205
conditional basis of his lawful permanent resident status. We dismiss the petition
for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary denial of
Epremian’s application for a waiver under 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4)(B), where he
does not raise a colorable constitutional claim or question of law that would invoke
our jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1186a(c)(4), 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii); Singh v. Holder,
591 F.3d 1190, 1194 (9th Cir. 2010); Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926,
930 (9th Cir. 2005). Epremian’s contentions that the agency erred in weighing
factors and failed to sufficiently explain its reasoning are not supported by the
record and thus do not amount to colorable claims. See Martinez-Rosas, 424 F.3d
at 930 (“To be colorable in this context, . . . the claim must have some possible
validity.” (citation and international quotation marks omitted)). To the extent the
agency relied on its adverse credibility determination and the determination is
subject to review, it is supported by substantial evidence. See Shrestha v. Holder,
590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010) (adverse credibility determination supported
under the totality of circumstances).
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Epremian’s remaining
contentions regarding whether he established that he entered into his marriage in
good faith. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts
and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they

-- 2 of 3 --

3 16-73205
reach).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

-- 3 of 3 --