• Home
  • Practice Areas
    • Hearings & Appeals
    • Deportation, Removal & Asylum
    • Family Immigration
    • Marriage
    • Employment Visas
    • H-1B Visas
    • E-1 & E-2 Visas
    • Labor Certifications
    • I-9/Worksite Enforcement
  • Attorneys
    • Philip M. Levin, Managing Partner
    • Don L. Pangilinan, Associate
    • Saja A. Raoof, Of Counsel
    • Alec P. Wilczynski, Of Counsel
  • Blog
  • Contact Us

Philip Levin & Associates

Immigration Law

800-974-2691       
  • Home
  • Practice Areas
    • Hearings & Appeals
    • Deportation, Removal & Asylum
    • Family Immigration
    • Marriage
    • Employment Visas
    • H-1B Visas
    • E-1 & E-2 Visas
    • Labor Certifications
    • I-9/Worksite Enforcement
  • Attorneys
    • Philip M. Levin, Managing Partner
    • Don L. Pangilinan, Associate
    • Saja A. Raoof, Of Counsel
    • Alec P. Wilczynski, Of Counsel
  • Blog
  • Contact Us

BIA Holds That, Under The Plain Language Of INA §237(a)(3)(D)(i), It Is Not Necessary To Show Intent To Establish That One Is Deportable For Making A False Representation Of U.S. Citizenship. Although A Naturalization Certificate Is Evidence Of U.S. Citizenship, The Certificate Itself Does Not Confer Citizenship Status If It Is Acquired Unlawfully.

July 30, 2019 Philip Levin

On June 28, 2019, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) dismissed the appeal of an order by the Immigration Judge (IJ) finding respondent, who had falsely claimed to be a U.S. citizen, removable per INA §237(a)(3)(D) for that misrepresentation but granting his application for cancellation of removal; neither party appealed the cancellation grant but respondent appealed the finding of removability. Respondent had been admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident but, subsequently purchased a Naturalization Certificate from an employee of the legacy-INS without properly completing the naturalization process (he testified before the IJ that he could not pass the English and civics tests).

On appeal, respondent claimed that he was a U.S. citizen and thus not removable and, therefore, that proceedings should be terminated. He argued that DHS had to prove he had made a false claim to U.S. citizenship that was “willful” or “knowing” to be found removable under §237(a)(3)(D). He also asserted “that he has always believed he was a United States citizen and that because he acted in good faith,” he did not obtain the Naturalization Certificate for any “benefit” under the Act (INA). In rebuttal, DHS argued that the statutory language of §257(a)(3)(D) “does not require intent or a culpable mental state.” The BIA stated that the question before it was whether a false claim to U.S. citizenship must be made knowingly to render the maker removable.

Initially, the Board found it has “a duty” to follow the plain and unambiguous language of the statute. On its face, §237(a)(3)(D)(i) provides that one is removable if he “falsely represents, or has falsely represented, himself to be a citizen of the United States for any purpose or benefit.” The BIA noted that the plain language of this section does not require an intent to falsely represent citizenship status. (In a footnote, the opinion pointed out that INA §212(a)(6)(C)(i) renders one inadmissible if he by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact, seeks to procure a visa, other documentation, or admission into the U.S. or other benefit provided for under the Act. The absence of a “knowing” or willful” requirement for false claims to citizenship in both 212(a)(6)(C)(i)  and 237(a)(3)(D)(i), concluded the Board, indicates that there was no congressional intent to include one.)  The BIA went on to note that Congress had established a “narrow exception” for those whose parents are or were U.S. citizens, who permanently resided in the U.S. before the age of 16, and who reasonably believed that they were U.S. citizens when they made such a claim.

Concluding that this exception “shows that Congress chose to exclude a scienter requirement” from 237(a)(3)(D)(i), the Board concluded that, under the plain language of that section, it is not necessary to show intent to establish that a respondent is deportable for making a false representation of U.S. citizenship; one need only “falsely claim to be” a U.S. citizen “for any purpose or benefit under the Act or any Federal  or State law” to be found deportable.

As to respondent’s reliance on Matter of Barcenas-Barrera, 25 I&N Dec. 40 (BIA 2009), the BIA distinguished that precedent decision, finding it did not resolve the instant issue because, in that case, the appellant was convicted of willfully and knowingly making a false representation of birth in the U.S. on a passport application and therefore was found inadmissible under INA §212(a)(b)(C)(ii). Barcenas-Barrera did not, found the Board, stand for the “broad proposition” that, in order for a false claim to U.S. citizenship to have any negative consequence, “it must be made knowingly and intelligently.” In the instant case, the IJ found that respondent had falsely claimed U.S. citizenship after unlawfully purchasing a Naturalization Certificate and using it to obtain a U.S. passport-clearly, concluded the decision, “a ‘benefit’ under the Act.” Additionally, the IJ had concluded that respondent’s use of the passport to travel abroad and reenter the country was itself “a benefit”.

The BIA thus found no clear error in the IJ’s holding that respondent’s false claim to citizenship was made with a subjective intent to obtain such benefits. He was also correct, stated the opinion, in concluding that respondent is removable under §237(a)(3)(D) because of the existence of clear and convincing evidence that his unlawful acquisition of the Certificate “was for the purpose of obtaining these benefits.”

Finally, addressing respondent’s claims that he is a U.S. citizen and that DHS lacked the authority to cancel his Naturalization Certificate, the Board noted that – contrary to his arguments – the instant matter “does not involve the revocation of naturalization,” which can only happen in federal district court. Similarly, the decision confirmed DHS’s authority to cancel a Naturalization Certificate, as the statute and regulations provide for administrative cancellation when a Certificate is illegally or fraudulently obtained or created. Citing to Matter of Falodun, 27 I&N Dec. 52 (BIA 2017), the BIA concluded that a Naturalization Certificate cannot be administratively cancelled if it was issued to one who lawfully filed for naturalization and completed the entire process, including the oath of allegiance. As responded was never lawfully naturalized, his Certificate was properly cancelled. Therefore, the IJ’s finding of removability was upheld and the appeal dismissed. Matter of Zhang, 27 I&N Dec. 569 (BIA 2019).

Filed Under: BIA

Contact Us

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Recent Blog Posts

  • Because The Identity Of The Drug Involved Is An Element Of The Crime Of Possession Of A Controlled Substance Under Section 124.401(5) Of The Iowa Code, The Statue Is Divisible (Regarding Marijuana, Methamphetamine Or Amphetamine) As To The Specific Drug Involved, And The Record Of Conviction Can Be Examined Under The Modified Categorical Approach To Determine Whether That Drug Is A Controlled Substance Under Federal Law. Respondent’s Conviction For Methamphetamine Possession Under Section 124.401(5) Qualifies As A Controlled Substance Offense Under INA §237(a)(2)(B)(i).
  • The Standard Of Proof Necessary To Bar The Approval Of A Visa Petition Based On Marriage Fraud Under INA §204(c) Is “Substantial And Probative Evidence.” The Degree Of Proof Necessary To Constitute “Substantial And Probative Evidence” Is More Than A Preponderance Of Evidence, But Less Than Clear And Convincing Evidence; The Evidence Must Be More Than Probably True That The Marriage Is Fraudulent. The Nature, Quality, Quantity, And Credibility Of The Evidence Of Marriage Fraud Contained In The Record Should Be Considered In Its Totality In Determining If It Is “Substantial And Probative.” The Application Of This Standard Of Proof Requires The Examination Of All The Relevant Evidence And A Determination As To Whether Such Evidence When Viewed In Its Totality, Establishes With Sufficient Probability That The Marriage Is Fraudulent. Both Direct And Circumstantial Evidence May Be Considered In Determining Whether There Is “Substantial And Probative Evidence” Of Marriage Fraud Under §204(c) And Circumstantial Evidence Alone May Be Sufficient To Constitute “Substantial And Probative Evidence.
  • Attorney General Barr Holds That In Matter Of L-E-A-, 27 I&N Dec. 40 (BIA 2018), The BIA Improperly Recognized The Respondent’s Father’s Immediate Family As A “Particular Social Group” (PSG) For Purposes Of Qualifying For Asylum Under The INA. All Asylum Applicants Seeking to Establish Membership In A PSG, Including Groups Defined By Family Or Kinship Ties, Must Establish That The Group Is 1) Composed Of Members Who Share A Common Immutable Characteristic; 2) Defined With Particularity; 3) Socially Distinct Within The Society In Question. While The BIA Has Recognized Certain Clans And Subclans as PSGs, Most Nuclear Families Are Not Inherently Socially Distinct And Therefore Do Not Qualify As PSGs. The Portion Of The BIA’s Decision Recognizing The Respondent’s Proposed PSG Is Overruled (Matter Of L-E-A, Part II. A). The Rest Of The BIA’s Decision Including Its Analysis Of The Required Nexus Between Alleged Persecution And The Alleged Protected Ground, Is Affirmed (Part II.B).
  • BIA Holds Immigration Judges Have The Authority To Deny An Application For Temporary Protected Status (TPS) In The Exercise Of Discretion.
  • BIA Holds That, Under The Plain Language Of INA §237(a)(3)(D)(i), It Is Not Necessary To Show Intent To Establish That One Is Deportable For Making A False Representation Of U.S. Citizenship. Although A Naturalization Certificate Is Evidence Of U.S. Citizenship, The Certificate Itself Does Not Confer Citizenship Status If It Is Acquired Unlawfully.

Practice Areas

  • Family Immigration
  • Marriage
  • Employment Visas
  • H-1B Visas
  • PERM Labor Certification
  • E-1 & E-2 Visas
  • Hearing & Appeals
  • Deportation, Removal, Asylum
  • I-9/Worksite Enforcement

San Francisco Main Office
930 Montgomery Street
Suite 502
San Francisco, CA 94133

Silicon Valley Office
5201 Great America Parkway
Suite 320
Santa Clara, CA 95054

North Bay Office
4040 Civic Center Drive
Suite 200
San Rafael, CA 94903

Santa Barbara Office
3463 State Street
Suite 516
Santa Barbara, CA 93105

Los Angeles Office
445 S. Figueroa Street
Suites 2600 & 2700
Los Angeles, CA 90071

©2019 Philip Levin & Associates, Prof. Corp. All Rights Reserved.
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Employment Visas
  • Family Visas
  • Testimonials
  • Contact Us
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy

R-1
TN

The TN nonimmigrant classification allows qualified Canadian and Mexican citizens to enter the U.S. and engage in professional business activities. PL&A will help you navigate through the TN application process by evaluating your eligibility, preparing supporting documentation for your application, and ultimately filing your application. 

B-1

PL&A will guide you through the consular process to receive a B-1 visa for specific short-term business purposes ranging from contract negotiations to seminars and conferences.

O-1

O-1 visas are for persons of extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business or sports. 

J-1

Administered by the Department of State, the J-1 visa is for students, trainees, academics, researchers, professionals or experts participating in an approved Exchange Visitor program. PL&A will assist you and your sponsor with preparing the necessary paperwork and the consular process so you can begin your program at ease. 

E-1 & E-2

E-1 visas and E-2 visas are for nationals of countries with which the United States has a treaty of friendship, commerce and navigation (FCN) or bilateral investment treaty (BIT). If you are a nonimmigrant trader or investor seeking to conduct business operations or develop a new enterprise in the U.S., we will help you file for the appropriate visa. As a recognized expert in this area, Mr. Levin will provide experienced and dependable assistance with E-1 or E-2 visa applications. 

  • E-1: If you are a national of a country that conducts a significant volume of trade with the U.S. (or if you intend to develop trade between the U.S. and your home country) you might be eligible for entry under an E-1 visa. 
  • E-2: The E-2 visa allows investors from treaty countries to enter the U.S. for purposes of directing and developing a business, with all the commitments and risks implicit in entrepreneurial activity. 
L-1

The L-1 visa category is for executives, managers or professionals employed by foreign affiliates of U.S companies. The L-1 visa is divided into two classifications:

  • L-1A Intracompany Transferee Executive or Manager
  • L-1B Intracompany Transferee Specialized Knowledge
H-1B

Many companies in the United States find themselves increasingly dependent on the talent, experience and energy of foreign national workers in professional, technical or specialized occupational fields. These employees typically enter the U.S. on nonimmigrant H-1B visas for “specialty occupations.” 

With extensive experience in business immigration, you can count on PL&A to guide your company or Human Resources department in preparing and filing an H-1B visa petition.

Green Card

Family preservation and reunification is a priority for our firm. Our attorneys have advised and assisted families from all over the world with entry visas, adjustment of status, and other immigration problems. 

  • Immediate Relatives: If you are the spouse, child, or parent of a U.S. citizen, we can help you obtain a green card through an Immediate Relative petition. 
  • Family-Based Preference: If your relative is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, we can assist you with your green card application through one of the family based preference categories.
Fiances

If you are a U.S. citizen and your fiancé/fiancée or spouse is overseas, our office will assist you to navigate the CIS requirements and regulations to have the case approved and then prepare you and your spouse for the interview at the U.S. Embassy. PL&A will also help you find the best ways to resolve any problems you encounter if a waiver is required in your case.

Marriage

Immigration through marriage is a common means of obtaining permanent residence in the U.S.  Since 1991, Philip Levin & Associates has helped hundreds of couples immigrate to the U.S. and build their lives together. 

  • I-130 Petition and Adjustment of Status: If you are married to a U.S. citizen, present in the U.S. and eligible to do so, our attorneys will assist you in preparing and filing the necessary I-130 petition and I-485 adjustment of status application in the U.S.
  • Immigrant Visa Consular Processing: If you are married to a U.S. citizen and reside abroad, we will assist you in preparing and filing the IV petition with an Embassy or Consulate-General in your native country. 
  • I-751, Remove Conditions on Residence: If you have been married less than two years at the time your green card was initially approved, our office will help you in the joint petition process to become a permanent resident.