Roger Ricardo Alfaro v. U.S. Attorney General
862 F.3d 1261
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Roger Alfaro, a Nicaraguan national, entered the U.S. on a tourist visa (1981) and adjusted to lawful permanent resident status in 1982.
- In 2013 ICE served a Notice to Appear alleging removal for two or more crimes involving moral turpitude; ICE later added a removal charge that Alfaro was inadmissible at the time of adjustment for willfully making a material misrepresentation on his 1982 application (answered “no” to whether he had been arrested, convicted, or confined).
- The factual episode: in ~1980, while fighting with U.S.-trained Contra rebels, Alfaro was temporarily confined by fellow Contras in a jungle trailer after an incident involving captives; he had severed the hand of an already-deceased captive to free chained prisoners under fire.
- The IJ and the BIA found Alfaro’s “no” answer was a willful material misrepresentation because his confinement in the rebel-controlled trailer constituted being “confined in a prison.”
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the legal question whether a rebel-controlled trailer in the jungle qualifies as a “prison” for purposes of the admission/misrepresentation ground and whether Alfaro’s answer was therefore a material misrepresentation justifying removal.
- Court concluded as a matter of law that the rebel-controlled trailer was not a “prison” because a prison implies state/legal authority to confine; consequently Alfaro did not make a material misrepresentation and the petition was granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Alfaro’s “no” answer was a material misrepresentation because he had been confined in a "prison" | Alfaro: confinement in a rebel-controlled trailer is not a prison, so his answer was truthful | Government/BIA: being involuntarily detained by Contras during wartime amounted to confinement in a prison | Held: Not a prison as matter of law; answer not a material misrepresentation |
| Whether a rebel-controlled detention requires state/legal authority to qualify as a “prison” | Alfaro: definition of prison requires state or legal authority to confine | Government: wartime involuntary detention is akin to military prison; legal authority need not be formal state actor in context | Held: Definition requires legal/state authority; insurgent detention lacks that authority |
| Whether willfulness of misrepresentation must be reached given question about "prison" | Alfaro: question of willfulness need not be reached if not a prison | Government: focused on materiality and willfulness | Held: Court did not reach willfulness because no prison confinement was found |
| Standard of review applied to BIA determination | Alfaro: legal question appropriate for de novo review | Government: argued sufficiency of evidence standard | Held: Court reviewed BIA’s legal determination de novo |
Key Cases Cited
- Jean-Pierre v. United States Attorney General, 500 F.3d 1315 (11th Cir. 2007) (review is generally limited to the BIA opinion)
- Lopez v. United States Attorney General, 504 F.3d 1341 (11th Cir. 2007) (BIA legal determinations reviewed de novo)
- Ortiz-Bouchet v. United States Attorney General, 714 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 2013) (willful misrepresentation requires knowledge of falsity)