27 I. & N. Dec. 569
BIA2019Background
- Respondent: Chinese national, LPR admitted 1991, purchased a Form N-550 Certificate of Naturalization from a former INS officer convicted of selling certificates.
- DHS evidence that respondent did not complete naturalization steps (no N-445 notice, no interview, could not pass English/civics).
- Immigration Judge found respondent had falsely represented U.S. citizenship by using the unlawfully obtained certificate and passport, and granted cancellation of removal but found removability under INA § 237(a)(3)(D).
- Respondent argued he believed he was a U.S. citizen and that § 237(a)(3)(D) requires a knowing/willful false representation; he also contested DHS cancellation of his certificate.
- Board reviewed statutory text and legislative context and concluded the certificate was unlawfully obtained, subject to administrative cancellation, and did not confer citizenship.
Issues
| Issue | Respondent's Argument | DHS's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 237(a)(3)(D)(i) requires a knowing/willful false claim to establish deportability | § 237(a)(3)(D) requires the false claim be knowing/willful; respondent acted in good faith | Statutory text contains no scienter; no intent element required | No scienter required; false representation alone suffices for deportability |
| Whether respondent is a U.S. citizen because he holds a Certificate of Naturalization | Certificate proves citizenship; cancellation ineffective to strip status | Certificate was illegally obtained and may be administratively cancelled; unlawfully procured certificate does not confer citizenship | Certificate unlawfully obtained; respondent never lawfully naturalized; cancellation proper and certificate does not confer citizenship |
| Whether proof of criminal conviction is required to sustain removability under § 237(a)(3)(D)(i) | Respondent implied criminal proof necessary | Not required to prove a criminal conviction to establish deportability | Criminal conviction not required; clear and convincing evidence of unlawful procurement and use suffices |
| Whether IJ’s factual finding of intent to obtain benefits was clearly erroneous | Respondent contested lack of finding of knowing misrepresentation | DHS pointed to use of certificate and passport to obtain benefits and reentry as evidence of intent | IJ’s finding that respondent used the certificate to obtain benefits was not clearly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281 (statutory language controls when unambiguous)
- Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337 (contextual statutory interpretation)
- Patel v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 917 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir.) (text of similar provision contains no knowing requirement)
- Valadez-Munoz v. Holder, 623 F.3d 1304 (9th Cir.) (false claim provision requires falsity, not willfulness)
- Richmond v. Holder, 714 F.3d 725 (2d Cir.) (interpretation of near-identical inadmissibility provision)
- Castro v. Attorney Gen., 671 F.3d 356 (3d Cir.) (obtaining entry by false claim to citizenship is a "benefit")
- Jamieson v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 765 (8th Cir.) (same)
- Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (naturalization requires strict statutory compliance)
- Fedorenko v. United States, 449 U.S. 490 (citizenship procured unlawfully can be set aside)
- INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24 (courts need not decide unnecessary issues)