Benedicto Sustal v. Eric Holder, Jr.

MEMORANDUM

Benedicto Sustal (“Sustal”) petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“D”) order finding him removable. Sustal also appeals the BIA’s decision denying his motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 , and we affirm.

Sustal argues that the subsequent annulment of his marriage should be given retroactive effect so as to cure the violation at the time he filed his visa application and entered the United States. Our case, Hendrix v. INS, 583 F.2d 1102 (9th Cir.1978), forecloses this claim for relief. We held in Hendrix that “we are not obliged to give retroactive effect to annulments so as to cure a violation of law respecting entry into the United States.” Id. at 1103 (quoting Matter of Wong, 16 I. & N. Dec. 87, 89 (BIA 1977)); see also Matter of Astorga, 17 I. & N. Dec. 1, 4 (BIA 1979) (“[Mjarriages 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 his being unmarried.”). Thus, “[ujnless unusual circumstances dictate that in the…