Alom v. Whitaker, 910 F.3d 708

Alom, a Bangladeshi national, obtained conditional lawful permanent resident status in 2005 based on a 2003 marriage to U.S. citizen Shahrine Naz; they divorced in December 2005.
Conditional residency requires a joint petition to remove conditions near the two‑year anniversary; Alom could not file jointly after the divorce and sought a waiver asserting the marriage was entered in good faith.
USCIS denied Alom’s waiver requests (including an earlier abuse claim) and terminated his conditional status; DHS then placed him in removal proceedings.
An Immigration Judge denied the good‑faith waiver, finding Alom’s evidence and testimony insufficient (short cohabitation, no joint finances or children, credibility issues, and reliance on Naz’s divorce statements).
The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, stating the question of good faith is factual and reviewing the IJ’s findings for clear error.
Alom moved to reopen/reconsider with additional evidence (photos, travel records, communications); the BIA denied reopening as not showing new evidence and denied reconsideration as untimely or irrelevant.

Issue	Alom's Argument	Whitaker's Argument	Held
Whether the BIA applied the correct standard of review to the IJ’s good‑faith marriage determination	BIA erred by applying clear‑error (factual) review; ultimate question is mixed law and fact and requires de novo review	Good‑faith determination is a factual inquiry and subject to clear‑error review by the BIA	Court: The ultimate determination is a mixed question of law and fact; BIA should apply de novo review to whether established facts meet the legal standard, though IJ’s factual findings remain reviewable for clear error; remand required
Whether the BIA abused its discretion in denying reopening and reconsideration	New evidence submitted with motion showed good faith and hardship; BIA ignored relevant material	BIA reasonably found evidence not new/unavailable and reconsideration arguments were forfeited or irrelevant	Court: Alom abandoned meaningful challenge to denial of reopening/reconsideration by failing to brief it; denial stands

Boluk v. Holder, 642 F.3d 297 (2d Cir.) (noncitizen bears burden to prove qualifying marriage entered in good faith)
Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233 (2d Cir.) (standard for reviewing IJ and BIA decisions)
Contreras-Salinas v. Holder, 585 F.3d 710 (2d Cir.) (jurisdictional notes on review of discretionary relief)
Khan v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 31 (2d Cir.) (whether agency applied erroneous legal standard is a reviewable question of law)
Upatcha v. Sessions, 849 F.3d 181 (4th Cir.) (whether credited evidence meets good‑faith marriage standard is legal/mixed question reviewed de novo)
Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268 (2d Cir.) (de novo review applies to legal questions about sufficiency of evidence for asylum standards)
Mirzoyan v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 217 (2d Cir.) (ultimate legal application to established facts is a mixed question reviewed de novo)
Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191 (2d Cir.) (de novo review for whether petitioner meets statutory standard)
Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540 (2d Cir.) (issues not meaningfully briefed are abandoned)