Munna Godfrey v. Loretta E. Lynch, 811 F.3d 1013

Munna Songe Godfrey, a Tanzanian national, entered U.S. on an F-1 visa in 2002, dropped out of school, and remained in the U.S.; married a U.S. citizen who filed an I-130 for him in 2005 (approved 2006).
Godfrey completed multiple Form I-9s for employers and checked the single combined box "citizen or national of the United States." USCIS previously denied his adjustment application (2006) for falsely representing U.S. citizenship when applying to college.
Removal proceedings began in 2009; Godfrey applied for adjustment of status under INA § 245 and initially received an oral indication of approval from the IJ, but biometrics remained outstanding.
DHS submitted an I-9 dated March 10, 2010 (after the first hearing) showing Godfrey again checked the "citizen or national" box; the IJ admitted the form, held a new hearing, and found Godfrey knowingly represented himself as a U.S. citizen.
The IJ denied adjustment as Godfrey was inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii) (false claim to U.S. citizenship, non-waivable); the BIA affirmed and relied on precedent holding I-9s admissible in removal proceedings.
Godfrey appealed to this Court raising three issues: (1) insufficient substantial evidence that he intended to represent himself as a citizen rather than a national; (2) eligibility for a waiver of inadmissibility; (3) due process violation from admitting the I-9 after an initial grant indication.

Issue	Godfrey's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether substantial evidence supports finding Godfrey intended to represent himself as a U.S. citizen (not merely a national) on Form I-9	Godfrey contends his testimony shows he did not know the difference between "citizen" and "national," so he could not have knowingly represented himself as a citizen	Government points to testimony that he believed he needed to claim citizen to keep his job, prior USCIS denial for false citizenship, and the March 2010 I-9 after proceedings began	Court held substantial evidence supports the BIA/IJ finding that Godfrey intended to represent himself as a citizen
Whether Godfrey is eligible for a waiver of inadmissibility under INA § 1182	Godfrey argues waiver should be available to avoid hardship	Government argues statute does not permit waiver for false claims of U.S. citizenship under § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)	Court held no waiver is available for false claim of citizenship; waiver applies to misrepresentation clause (i) only
Whether admitting the March 2010 I-9 after an oral grant indication violated due process	Godfrey claims the IJ effectively granted relief and then reopened the record unfairly, prejudicing him	Government contends the IJ had not entered a final order, had authority/duty to reopen, and afforded Godfrey ample opportunity to respond	Court held no due process violation: proceedings were not final, reopening was lawful, and admission was not fundamentally unfair

Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, 563 U.S. 582 (recognizes state and federal enforcement interactions in immigration context)
Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (federal supremacy in immigration enforcement principles)
Lozano v. City of Hazelton, 724 F.3d 297 (3d Cir. 2013) (I-9 and local immigration enforcement decisions)
Downs v. Holder, 758 F.3d 994 (8th Cir. 2014) (I-9 admissible in removal proceedings)
Mayemba v. Holder, 776 F.3d 542 (8th Cir. 2015) (intent in marking "citizen or national" is dispositive)
Rodriguez v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 773 (8th Cir. 2008) (distinguishing claims of citizen vs national for inadmissibility)
Kirong v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 800 (8th Cir. 2008) (burden to prove intent to claim "national")
Sandoval v. Holder, 641 F.3d 982 (8th Cir. 2011) (waiver availability under § 1182 analyzed)
Tun v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 1014 (8th Cir. 2007) (due process — admission of probative evidence must be fundamentally fair)