
    YU QUN HUANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-72497.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 15, 2011.
    
    Filed June 29, 2011.
    Chung N. Phang, Esquire, Law Offices of Chung N. Phang, Oakland, CA, for Petitioner.
    Surell Brady, Esquire, Trial, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Yu Qun Huang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s order finding Huang removable and denying her application under 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4)(B) for waiver of the joint filing requirement to remove the conditional basis of her lawful permanent resident status. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s denial of the waiver, Oropeza-Wong v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1135, 1147 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding where the record reveals several internal inconsistencies in Huang’s testimony regarding her and her former spouse’s living arrangements, where her former spouse lived after his surgery, and who cared for him during his convalescence. Because these inconsistencies go to the heart of whether the marriage was entered into in good faith, substantial evidence supports the denial of Huang’s waiver application. See id. at 1148; 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4) (alien must demonstrate eligibility for said waiver).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     