UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

┐ NAYANABEN PATEL, │ Petitioner, │ > No. 23-3461 │ v. │ │ MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, │ Respondent. │ ┘

On Petition for Review from the Board of Immigration Appeals. No. A 089 213 082.

Argued: January 30, 2024

Decided and Filed: September 10, 2024

Before: SILER, MATHIS, and BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judges. _________________

COUNSEL ARGUED: Ainuddin Ahmed, AINE AHMED LAW, Carmel, Indiana, for Petitioner. Jaclyn G. Hagner, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. ON BRIEF: Ainuddin Ahmed, AINE AHMED LAW, Carmel, Indiana, for Petitioner. Jaclyn G. Hagner, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

SILER, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which MATHIS, J., joined. BLOOMEKATZ, J. (pp. 14–27, app. 28–29), delivered a separate dissenting opinion. No. 23-3461 Patel v. Garland Page 2

_________________

OPINION _________________

SILER, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Nayanaben Patel1 entered the United States in March 2000. But exactly when, where, how, and with whom was never conclusively established. She applied for adjustment of status based on her husband’s legal status in the United States but lied about her manner of entry in doing so. She admitted to lying in a statement to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), but then testified in 2019 in a manner that called into question elements of that statement as well. Citing this factual confusion, the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied her application for adjustment of status and ordered her removed to India. The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirmed. Because the IJ’s determination was discretionary and protected by statute from judicial review, and because Petitioner has not raised colorable constitutional claims reviewable by this court, we deny the petition for review.

I.

Petitioner, whose husband was already in the United States, left her native India and entered the United States sometime in early 2000. She claims in her opening brief that she entered on March 3, 2000, and that she did so with the help of an Indian movie star, Shanti Priya—known as Shanti Ray to the public—by posing as her nanny during a trip to the United States. Ray, who allegedly ran a business of sorts helping people get to the United States, was paid a considerable sum of money by Petitioner to secure her a tourist visa and then help her get to the United States and through customs.

Once in the United States, Petitioner lived with her husband. They eventually had three children, all of whom are U.S. citizens. Her husband petitioned for lawful status as a foreign worker on November 16, 2007. That same day, Petitioner’s attorney prematurely submitted an I-485 Petition for Adjustment of Status seeking to get Petitioner a green card based on her husband’s work status.