Ninth Circuit Construes False Claim to US Citizenship Provision

The Ninth Circuit has determined that false claiming to be a U.S. citizen during a criminal arrest to avoid the initiation of removal proceedings does not trigger the false claim to U.S. citizenship inadmissibility bar. In so doing, the Court determined that Matter of Richmond’s analysis to the contrary is unreasonable and is not entitled to any deference. “Thus, for § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) to bar admission into the United States, the noncitizen must have made the false claim of citizenship to comport with some specific legal requirement. Any federal or state law requiring U.S. citizenship will do, but not simply ‘the immigration laws’ generally. And the noncitizen must have intended to obtain a benefit authorized by or achieve a purpose consistent with the specific law at issue. But a noncitizen does not act in accordance with the law by attempting to evade it.”

The full text of Ramirez Munoz v. Garland can be found here:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/06/26/21-70431.pdf

BIA Determines that False Claim to US Citizenship does not Require Knowledge of Falsity of Claim

The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that a lawful permanent resident is deportable for making a false claim to US citizenship even if he did not know his claim was false. “Significantly, Congress carved out a narrow exception to this provision for those aliens whose parents are or were United States citizens; who permanently resided in the United States prior to the age of 16 years; and who reasonably believed that they were United States citizens when they made such a claim.4 Section 237(a)(3)(D)(ii) of the Act; see also section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(II) of the Act. This exception indicates that an alien is not required to know that a claim to citizenship is false, because if Congress had intended to include a knowledge or willfulness requirement in section 237(a)(3)(D)(i), there would be no need for a good faith exception.” “thus, we conclude that under the plain language of that section, it is not necessary to show intent to establish that an alien is deportable for making a false representation of United States citizenship. An alien need only falsely claim to be a United States citizen for any purpose or benefit under the Act or any Federal or State law to be deportable.”

The full text of Matter of Zhang can be found here:

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1178256/download

Eleventh Circuit Rejects Matter of Richmond

The Eleventh Circuit has rejected the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision in Matter of Richmond, which held that a false claim to U.S. citizenship but must be material to the benefit sought in order to render the petitioner inadmissible. The court held that the plain language of the false claim statute does not include a materiality requirement, and as such, the decision in Richmond is not entitled to any deference. “Aliens can make a false representation with the goal of obtaining a benefit, even if the false representation does not help them achieve that goal.”

The full text of Patel v. Attorney General can be found here

http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201710636.pdf

Ninth Circuit Analyzes False Claim to US Citizenship for Private Employment

The Ninth Circuit has determined that making a false claim to US citizenship for the purpose of procuring private employment renders a non-citizen inadmissible. However, the court also found that the only way to make a false claim to US citizenship for the purpose of procuring private employment is through the use of an I-9 form.

The full text of Diaz-Jimenez v. Sessions can be found here:

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/08/30/15-73603.pdf

Board of Immigration Appeals Explores the Limitations of the False Claim to US Citizenship Provision

In a published decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has attempted to define the conduct that falls under the false claim to U.S. citizenship inadmissibility and deportability grounds.  The BIA laid out two requirements.  First, the Immigration Judge must find direct or circumstantial evidence demonstrating that the false claim was made with the subjective intent of achieving a purpose or obtaining a benefit under the Act or any other Federal or State law. Second, the presence of a purpose or benefit must be determined objectively—that is, the United States citizenship must actually affect or matter to the purpose or benefit sought. 

The BIA gave certain examples of conduct that might fall within or outside of the ambit of these provisions.  For example, making a false claim to a bank in order to obtain a loan might not fall within the ambit of these provisions unless citizenship status is a prerequisite to obtaining the loan.  Similarly, lying about one's citizenship status to the police for a minor offense (one unlikely to result in enforcement actions being taken by ICE under its Priority Enforcement Program) may not fall within the ambit of the provisions, but making a false claim to ICE in order to avoid removal proceedings would fall within the provisions.

The full text of Matter of Richmond can be found here:

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/file/879626/download

Eighth Circuit Addresses "Citizen or National" Box on the I-9

The Eighth Circuit determined that checking the box on a I-9 affirming that an applicant is a "citizen or national of the United States," on its own, is not sufficient to establish that the applicant made a false claim to U.S. citizenship.  Instead, an adjudicator must ascertain whether the applicant intended to make a false claim.  In the instant case, the petitioner had testified that he would lose his job if he wasn't a U.S. citizen, and thus, the Immigration Judge correctly determined that he intended to falsely represent himself as a U.S. citizen.

The full text of Godfrey v. Lynch can be found here: http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/151027P.pdf

Eighth Circuit Finds that Petitioner Made a False Claim to US Citizenship on an Electronic I-9 Form

The Eighth Circuit addressed the use of an electronic I-9 form, which pre-populated the applicant's biographical data and selected the US citizen box by default.  Though the petitioner argued that the selection of the U.S. citizen box was accidental, the court found that by submitting the form under penalty of perjury, the petitioner had adopted all the assertions in it.  Because the petitioner had made a false claim to U.S. citizenship, he was not eligible for lawful permanent residence based on his marriage to a U.S. citizen.

The full text of Etenyi v. Lynch can be found here: http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/15/08/143397P.pdf

Eighth Circuit Addresses False Claims to US Citizenship on I-9 Forms

Today, the Eighth Circuit addressed whether checking the "U.S. citizen or national" box on an I-9 form can constitute a false claim to U.S. citizenship.  The court reaffirmed its prior case law that checking this box on an I-9, on its own, does not necessarily establish a false claim to U.S. citizenship.  However, because the case arose in the context of eligibility for relief (the petitioner was seeking adjustment of status), the petitioner bore the burden of proving that his action did not constitute a false claim to U.S. citizenship that would render him inadmissible.  The petitioner testified that he did not know what a U.S. national was, that he had represented himself to be a U.S. citizen on his college application, and that he had not followed the application process laid out by his college for non-U.S. citizens.  Thus, the court found that he had not met his burden of demonstrating that his misrepresentation on the I-9 form was not a false claim to U.S. citizenship that rendered him inadmissible. 

The full text of Mayemba v. Holder can be found here: http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/15/01/131558P.pdf