Maria Angelita Alfons Gomez; v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA ANGELITA ALFONS GOMEZ;
et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
Nos. 15-72285
15-73435
Agency Nos. A099-799-895
A088-583-478
A088-583-479
A088-583-480
MEMORANDUM*
On Petitions for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted August 13, 2019
Pasadena, California
Before: SCHROEDER and GRABER, Circuit Judges, and M. WATSON,**
District Judge.
Petitioners Maria Gomez (“Gomez”), her husband, and their two children
petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision
affirming the immigration judge’s order finding Gomez removable. Gomez also
FILED
AUG 28 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The Honorable Michael H. Watson, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

appeals the BIA’s decision denying her motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petitions.
In 1994, Gomez sought to adjust status under section 245(i) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act as the unmarried daughter of a lawful permanent
resident. Although Gomez’s marriage certificate lists December 29, 1986, as her
date of marriage, she presented a decree from a Philippine court finding that her
marriage was invalid from the beginning because various formalities were not
followed in the marriage process.
The BIA correctly concluded that it was not required to give effect to the
Philippine court order. See Hendrix v. INS, 583 F.2d 1102, 1103 (9th Cir. 1978)
(per curiam) (quoting Matter of Wong, 16 I. & N. Dec. 87, 89 (B.I.A. 1977) (“[W]e
are not obliged to give retroactive effect to annulments so as to cure a violation of
law respecting entry into the United States.”)); Matter of Astorga, 17 I. & N. Dec.
1, 4 (B.I.A. 1979) (“[M]arriages declared void at inception, or annulled, will not
relate back to cure a ground of exclusion or deportation at the time of entry where
the alien entered the United States in an immigrant status dependent on [her] being
unmarried.”).
The BIA also permissibly found that Gomez’s arguments that her marriage
was invalid under Philippine law were unpersuasive in light of a visa petition that
2

-- 2 of 3 --

Gomez filed in 1999 as the married daughter of a United States citizen. In support
of that petition, Gomez submitted an affidavit indicating that she married her
husband in 1986. Gomez has sought “to decide unilaterally whether . . . her
marriage was valid or invalid according to the goal . . . she hopes to achieve.”
Hendrix, 583 F.2d at 1104. The BIA was correct in not permitting such a result.
PETITIONS DENIED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --