Raymond Dakura v. Eric Holder, Jr.
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 22156
| 4th Cir. | 2014Background
- Petitioner Raymond Dakura, a Ghana native, overstayed an F-1 student visa and later sought adjustment of status after marrying a U.S. citizen and filing an I-130/I-485.
- To obtain private employment in Virginia, Dakura completed Form I-9s using the identities of two U.S. citizens, attesting that he was a “citizen or national of the United States.”
- Criminal identity-theft/forgery charges were filed but later dismissed; DHS initiated removal proceedings based on Dakura’s admissions and I-9 conduct.
- An Immigration Judge (IJ) found Dakura removable, credited his testimony generally, but concluded he was inadmissible under the ‘‘false claim bar’’ (8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I)) for falsely claiming U.S. citizenship on Forms I-9.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, holding that claiming citizenship on a Form I-9 seeks a "benefit" under the INA (including §1324a), and denied Dakura’s adjustment application.
- The Fourth Circuit reviewed de novo the legal question and substantial-evidence review for factual findings, and denied Dakura’s petition for review, agreeing that false claims on Form I-9 render an alien inadmissible.
Issues
| Issue | Dakura's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether falsely claiming U.S. citizenship on a Form I-9 constitutes a "purpose or benefit" under the false claim bar | Dakura: Private employment is not an immigration "benefit" under §1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) | Government: §1182's explicit reference to §1324a (employment verification/I-9) makes private employment a covered benefit | Held: Yes — claiming citizenship on Form I-9 is a benefit under the false claim bar; inadmissible as a matter of law |
| Whether using another person’s identity avoids the false claim bar | Dakura: Using another’s identity is not a statement that he personally was a U.S. citizen | Government: Attesting on the I-9 that the person seeking employment is a citizen is a false claim regardless of assumed identity | Held: Court: The attestations on the Form I-9 that the applicant (Dakura) was a citizen satisfy the false claim bar |
| Whether Dakura actually received a benefit from the misrepresentation | Dakura: He received no benefit (assailant/assamoir collected wages) | Government: The statutory focus is the purpose of the claim (to obtain employment), not the ultimate recipient of wages | Held: Court: Purpose to obtain employment suffices; lack of direct receipt of wages does not defeat inadmissibility |
| Whether duress or lack of conviction defeats application of the false claim bar | Dakura: He acted under duress and was not convicted of identity offenses | Government: No evidence of duress; conviction is not required for inadmissibility | Held: Court: No evidence of duress submitted; conviction not necessary; duress claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Crocock v. Holder, 670 F.3d 400 (2d Cir. 2012) (I-9 false citizenship claim renders alien inadmissible/deportable)
- Ferrans v. Holder, 612 F.3d 528 (6th Cir. 2010) (Form I-9 false claim constitutes covered misrepresentation)
- Rodriguez v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 773 (8th Cir. 2008) (reference to §1324a indicates private employment is a "benefit" under the false claim bar)
- Kechkar v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 1080 (10th Cir. 2007) (I-9 misrepresentations support inadmissibility/deportability)
- Theodros v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 396 (5th Cir. 2007) (false claim of citizenship on employment verification can trigger removal)
- Castro v. Attorney Gen., 671 F.3d 356 (3d Cir. 2012) (distinguishes claims made to avoid police reporting; indicates I-9 claims are encompassed)