Crocock v. Holder, 670 F.3d 400

Crocock, an Irish native, entered on a student visa and later worked in Maine.
He completed an I-9, marking “citizen or national.”
DHS charged him with removable for overstay and for falsely claiming citizenship.
IJ found him ineligible for adjustment due to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii) inadmissibility.
Crocock pled guilty to false attestation on the I-9 and conceded removability for overstaying.
BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision; Crocock’s petition for review followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether I-9 attestation alone proves false citizenship claim	Crockock argues I-9 is ambiguous about citizenship vs. nationality	Crockock bore burden to show no false claim of US citizenship	No error; burden not met; I-9 shows citizen claim.
Whether Crocock must prove he did not falsely claim citizenship	Crockock contends he claimed nationality, not citizenship	Applicant bears burden to prove admissibility and no false claim	Crockock failed to prove he did not falsely claim citizenship.
Standard of review for eligibility vs. discretionary denial	N/A (not a dispute among parties)	Review de novo for legal questions	Court applies de novo review to legal questions of eligibility.
Effect of Crocock's admissions and guilty plea on admissibility	Crockock's admissions should undermine strict reading	Admissions corroborate false attestation	Findings supported; no error in agency’s determination.

Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268 (2d Cir. 2005) (guidance on review of agency determinations)
Ibragimov v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2007) (burden to show admissibility despite negative proof)
Aslam v. Mukasey, 537 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2008) (de novo review for legal questions in adjustment cases)
Ateka v. Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 954 (8th Cir. 2004) (burden on applicant to show admissibility)
Drax v. Reno, 338 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2003) (assimilation standard for adjustment proceedings)