William Muiruri v. Loretta E. Lynch
803 F.3d 984
8th Cir.2015Background
- Muiruri, a Kenyan national, overstayed his student visa and was apprehended; he admitted in a sworn statement to falsely representing himself as a U.S. citizen.
- DHS charged him with removability for visa overstay (INA § 237(a)(1)(C)(I)) and false claim to U.S. citizenship (INA § 237(a)(3)(D)); he sought adjustment of status via marriage to a U.S. citizen.
- Muiruri filed a Motion to Suppress alleging illegal search/seizure and coerced statement, and alternatively asked for an evidentiary hearing or that the court consider his motion evidence on the false-citizenship charge.
- The immigration judge denied suppression, declined an evidentiary hearing on the motion, and resolved the false-representation charge based on the motion record and submitted documents (I-9s and an employment application showing Muiruri checked "U.S. citizen").
- Muiruri did not object at subsequent hearings to the judge deciding the false-representation issue without a separate merits hearing; the BIA affirmed and this court reviewed the record-limited appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Muiruri was denied due process and a required merits hearing on the false-representation charge by issuing decision before removal hearing | Muiruri: issuing the decision precluded a hearing, denying his right to fairly present evidence, cross-examine, and develop the record; violated Fifth Amendment, INA, and regs | Government: IJ properly adjudicated the motion as Muiruri requested in his Prayer for Relief and he failed to object later; any error forfeited | Held: Forfeited — Muiruri requested the court consider his motion evidence as to the false-representation charge and did not timely object, so no preserved due process/ statutory/regulatory violation. |
| Whether the government proved false representation by clear and convincing evidence | Muiruri: I-9s alone insufficient; record does not compel finding he intended to represent himself specifically as a U.S. citizen (vs. national) | Government: I-9s, employment application asking "Are you a citizen?" checked yes, and sworn admission constitute sufficient evidence | Held: Substantial-evidence standard satisfied — combined documents and sworn admission support the finding of false representation as a U.S. citizen. |
| Whether marking the I-9 "citizen or national" box can alone establish false representation as a citizen | Muiruri: relied on cases limiting I-9 alone to prove citizen representation | Government: additional evidence shows intent to represent as citizen | Held: Court reiterated that an I-9 marking is not dispositive by itself, but additional evidence here (employment app, sworn admission) supports the finding. |
| Preservation of alternative legal theories raised below (e.g., lesser prejudice standard) | Muiruri: contended prejudice not required for regulatory violation | Government: argument not preserved before BIA | Held: Not preserved — court declined to address unraised contentions. |
Key Cases Cited
- La v. Holder, 701 F.3d 566 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard for reviewing BIA adoption of IJ opinion)
- Bernal-Rendon v. Gonzales, 419 F.3d 877 (8th Cir. 2005) (substantial-evidence review of factual findings)
- Habchy v. Gonzales, 471 F.3d 858 (8th Cir. 2006) (deference to BIA statutory interpretations)
- Al Khouri v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 461 (8th Cir. 2004) (aliens entitled to due process in deportation proceedings)
- Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993) (due process requires fundamentally fair proceedings)
- Tun v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 1014 (8th Cir. 2007) (right to present evidence and develop record in removal proceedings)
- United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543 (8th Cir. 2005) (forfeiture of unasserted rights)
- Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (forfeiture doctrine)
- Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868 (1991) (discouraging "sandbagging")
- Rodriguez v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 773 (8th Cir. 2008) (I-9 "citizen" marking can indicate false representation to obtain employment)
- Hashmi v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 700 (8th Cir. 2008) (I-9 disjunctive phrasing means box alone may not establish citizen misrepresentation)
- Mayemba v. Holder, 776 F.3d 542 (8th Cir. 2015) (additional evidence can show intent to represent as citizen despite I-9 ambiguity)
Result: Petition for review denied.