
    YOUNG JA CHO, AKA Young Ja Im, AKA Young Ja Kim, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-73330
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted April 11, 2017 
    
    Filed April 18, 2017
    Steve Sungsoo Chang, Esquire, Attorney, Law Offices of Chang & Lim, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner
    Erik R. Quick, Trial Attorney, 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: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Young Ja Cho, a native and citizen of South Korea, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision 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 a waiver under 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4)(B). Damon v. Ashcroft, 360 F.3d 1084, 1088 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Cho’s application for a waiver under 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4)(B), where the record does not compel reversal of the agency’s determination that Cho failed to establish that she entered into her marriage in good faith. See 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4); Oropeza-Wong v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1135, 1148 (9th Cir. 2005).

We reject Cho’s contentions that the agency failed to consider or discuss relevant evidence. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency need not write an exegesis on every contention); Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner did not overcome the presumption that the BIA did review the record).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     