< Back to Main News page

Petitioner was placed in removal proceedings for failing to maintain his nonimmigrant status. When allegations surfaced that Petitioner had, in 2002, completed a Form I-9 to work for Dillard's department store and checked the box indicating that he was a "citizen or national of the United States," DHS added charges of misrepresenting United States citizenship. Petitioner, who was married to a U.S. citizen, sought a continuance based on his wife's pending I-130 petition. The immigration judge scheduled another hearing, but stated that he would not continue the case further if he found a misrepresentation of citizenship. At the next hearing, Petitioner testified that he did not check the "citizen or national" box and that he actually left all the boxes blank because he did not fit any of the categories. A Dillard's human resources secretary testified that she was "99.9%" sure that no one at Dillard's would have checked the box if Petitioner had left it blank and that if it was blank, the form would have been returned to Petitioner to complete, or it would have been otherwise flagged as incomplete. The IJ found that Petitioner had checked the "citizen or national" box and rejected any suggestion that he checked the box to claim he was a U.S. national. Because of his false claim to U.S. citizenship, the IJ concluded that Petitioner was ineligible for adjustment of status, denied his request for a continuance and ordered him removed to Morocco. The BIA dismissed his appeal and denied Petitioner's subsequent motion to reopen and reconsider.

In order to be eligible for adjustment of status, an applicant must be "admissible to the United States." INA §245(a). Under INA §212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I), a person who "falsely represents, or has falsely represented, himself or herself to be a citizen of the United States for any purpose or benefit under this chapter (including [INA §274A]…) or any other Federal or State law is inadmissible." INA §274A(a)(1)(A) states, "[i]t is unlawful for a person or other entity to hire, or to recruit or refer for a fee, for employment in the United States an alien knowing the alien is an unauthorized alien…."

The court rejected Petitioner's argument that §212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) does not cover a misrepresentation of citizenship made in connection with private employment, noting that Petitioner cited no authority in support of his argument except for a concurring opinion in Ateka v. Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 954, 958 (8th Cir. 2004), which pointed out that the issue raised by Petitioner was not before the court. Moreover, §212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) specifically references INA §274A, entitled "Unlawful employment of aliens." The court concluded, "It appears self-evident that an alien who misrepresents citizenship to obtain private employment does so, at the very least, for the "purpose" of evading §274A(a)(1)(A)'s prohibition on 'a person or other entity' knowingly hiring aliens who are not authorized to work in this country." The court also concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA's denial of voluntary departure and found that the BIA did not abuse it discretion in refusing to reopen and reconsider Petitioner's case. The petition for review was dismissed in part and denied in part.