Margarita Fitzpatrick v. Jeff B. Sessions, 847 F.3d 913

Margarita Fitzpatrick, a Peruvian lawful permanent resident, applied for an Illinois driver’s license and displayed her green card and Peruvian passport. She checked a box on the DMV form claiming U.S. citizenship.
The DMV form included a checkbox that led to voter registration; a clerk asked if she wanted to register and said, “It’s up to you.” Fitzpatrick checked the registration box and, in 2006, voted twice in federal elections.
Aliens are prohibited from voting in federal elections (18 U.S.C. § 611); discovery of Fitzpatrick’s voting arose when she truthfully disclosed it on a 2007 naturalization application.
DHS initiated removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(6); an Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals ordered removal.
Fitzpatrick asserted an “entrapment by estoppel” / “official authorization” defense, arguing she had official permission to register and vote. The IJ and BIA rejected the defense; Fitzpatrick sought review.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed denial of relief, finding Fitzpatrick both made a material misrepresentation and did not receive authorization to vote from an official acting within authority; prosecutorial discretion had been considered but not exercised in her favor.

Issue	Fitzpatrick's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Availability of entrapment-by-estoppel / official-authorization defense to shield voting in federal elections from removal	Fitzpatrick: She received official approval (desk clerk’s conduct) after making full disclosures, so she was authorized to register and vote.	Government: No authorization because Fitzpatrick misrepresented her citizenship and no official (with authority) told her aliens could vote.	Denied — defense unavailable: she misrepresented citizenship and received no authorization.
Whether Fitzpatrick made complete and accurate representations to the DMV	Fitzpatrick: Impliedly argued her actions/answers reflected understanding and relied on clerk’s guidance.	Government: She checked the citizenship box despite being literate and able to understand the form; that was a material misrepresentation.	Denied — her checking the citizenship box was inaccurate and fatal to the defense.
Whether the clerk’s statement (“It’s up to you”) amounted to official authorization to vote	Fitzpatrick: The clerk’s question and response amounted to permission to register and vote.	Government: The response was a noncommittal statement (required by federal motor-voter rules) and does not authorize voting; registration does not equal authorization to vote in all elections.	Denied — clerk’s comment was a refusal to advise, not an authorization to vote in federal elections.

Keathley v. Holder, 696 F.3d 644 (7th Cir. 2012) (discussing limits of official-authorization/entrapment-by-estoppel defense and who can confer apparent authority)
Kimani v. Holder, 695 F.3d 666 (7th Cir. 2012) (statements about failure to read or understand form do not excuse misrepresentations for immigration consequences)