a false claim to u s citizenship does so for a purpose purpose is one of the words in section two twelve a six c and if it's if that is a purpose that i certainly include or the act but his extra words fifteen words after that but before i discuss those words i'd like to drop down to the next section section d it says and he l e n who is a sto standing here before you but they had a purpose or benefit under the act i'll skip the parentheses or under any federal or state laws all right what is a benefit we claim the right he claimed working and early and working to put food on the table to feed his family and pay the rent he has a right to work we're not claiming he has a constitutional right to work but we think the constitution and the united nations charter on human rights recognizes that everyone has a right to lawful employment yeah well the real issue i guess is  do we limit purpose to benefit or some version of that and then once we do that benefit what do we mean by benefit certainly benefit easily includes things like food stamps or things that are handed out as entitle much from the government to get that but we have a print out a call that refers to working and we've got some b a decisions and under chevron i'm not sure whether we don't have to give them difference has when  respond to that well you have three other circuits the fifth the sixth of the eighth have said that clearly seeking private employment is within section two seventy four a of the on documented allianz and it has outlines the procedures they have to follow it outlines that they require them to sar start in on online but when you get down to the responsibilities of the employee it merely states if the employee banks a false statement on the r nine he is subject to a charge of perjury now why didn't they put that he might be  well i find it very ambiguous but if it's ambiguous that gets us into chevron and tell me about what i'd tell me what i should do then with the b a decisions the seem to me to say that seeking private employment based on a claim of u s citizenship is a benefit within the meaning of the statute well in both of those cases they had a signed on on your honor and this case there is no signed off on the nine in the you know the case is closed but does the statute require that the false claim be made on the particular form or does a claim only does it state require only the false claim of citizenship be made well i think we have  to at least have to find out what benefits no i don't please answer that question is the requirement of claim of citizenship in the statute that it must be made on the form or is it sufficient to violent the statute that the claim of citizens  any form well i would think an admission by has to d s seems to be sufficient so the fact that he filled out the that there's no form in the record then doesn't make any difference that is if you make the claim of citizenship by for example procuring false identity and also security and so on that then is tantamount to a claim of citizenship unless the statute can be read to say that claim of citizenship is violates the statute only when i done on the particular form i think he's made the claim made to made the claim of citizenship and you responded that well in this particular case this is an appeal from the border going gratian appeals the immigration judge just assume you lose on the benefit i'm not asking you to concede that but some you lose on the matter of a question you say at least we need to remain and so that the agency relies on evidence that is in the record with respect to claim a citizenship yes i think that we should certainly do explain to me you know it's been a long time since i've been out seeking employment but what would my someone do today in order to gain employment employees you often hear people players asking for i nine correct yeah well you're on a book according to the latest pew survey we have at least eight million undocumented or overstayed ellie is employed in the united states for life is five percent of the entire what is  right to work many of them don't many of them are landscaping businesses small businesses construction everyone has as a social security number and somebody who is not here with papers you know doesn't happen some salt subs some form of documentation that allows them to work but whether it's legit or fraudulent a lot of it is thought is fraudulent yes rob and now we'll make sure you get a chance to respond so don't worry that you i'm his or contention is not removable in as much as a false claim to u s citizenship to and when it doesn't fall within the statute period however the board held subsequent to the hearing that an alien who represents himself as a citizen on a form i nine to secure employment with a private employer is falsely represented himself for purposes of the act hence we disagree with the argument that is not a reliance on his having filled out and i and i simply describing the holding in the other case how do you respond to that well i'm not quite sure your honor seems to be you either so i don't know i know i know you haven't signed it i know i understand that but it does not appear to me as though the b a in this case has relied for the purposes of his claim u s citizenship on his having signed and i mean the mention of the i mine is in the scripture of the holding of the other case in and in that case the claim of good morning your honors in may please the court my name is victor laurent and i represent their attorney general this petitioner admitted that he falsely represented himself to be a citizen of the united states to secure employment with a private employer is falsely represented himself for a purpose or benefit under the act did you just do it orally or did you do it on an honor well we don't know your honor because that would do the make a difference it does not make a diner's because the  particular provision at issue two twelve eighty six c two indicates that in any alien who falsely represents us falsely represented himself to be a citizen of the united states for any purpose or benefit under this jobs or not has the parent that a call about them placement provision is inadmissible it doesn't say any alien who falsely represents himself on a nine nine of course though anyone who does falsely represent themselves out in ninety nine is doing the same thing as somebody who falsely represents themselves orally but to answer your question that you asked to my counsel yes under the law any employer is supposed to have an individual fill out a nine nine to indicate that they have the right to work in the united states so that every employer my belief is yes every employer every employer who's employing people in united states has to has to have that authorization so so if i'm if i'm a homeowner employing somebody to take care of my children or to clean my house and they're not if you're problem i have to ask for  states but what the government does through the immigration and nationality act is has a particular statute which requires the employer to police this by saying you can only hire people who are citizens or have the right to work in the united states therefore you must have them fill out this i nine in which they attest under penalty of perjury that they have the ability to work in the united states now the i nine is a red herring issue because in fact we everybody treated it is if there was an admission that he had all right and nobody read to distinction between you know having been an oral representation as opposed to having been a reputation representation and i nine am i right well if the if you are is question is whether there is any discussion about whether it's an oral representation as compared to ninety nine i believe they answer is you are correct and we do not have any case law as i understand it in this circuit that says an oral representation of a false oral representation of citizenship in this context is to make the person remove we don't have piece of all of that a pay your honor you have the statute the immigration nationality act and specifically this doesn't say one way or the other it doesn't say whether it has to be or of representation on ninety nine but your honor what is the mask what is the difference the only difference is that and i nine a person is signing under penalty of perjury i follow that ok i don't know that i understand that and you concede that there is no i nine in this record there is no i nine in the record all right ok but for our purposes we have to treat it you don't have an exhibit so what you're saying is you're automatically presuming that it was an oral representation i don't know that that's fair either whether there was a representation whether words or written it really doesn't matter because because he admits it i mean it's one thing if he if there was a written representation by that but he denied that that existed he said actually admitting that he made this representation and he made it your honor to perpetrate wrong understand that i understand that and your point is that it doesn't make any difference that's correct and i understand that position shirt ok no your honor i didn't mean to be argumentative about i just wanted  benefit under the statute includes working from for private employer i understand government affairs i get that and then the reference to the statute is all kinds of burdens on the employer i don't see purpose or benefit under this chapter the purpose of an alien misrepresenting himself and falsely representing himself is precisely to obtain employment and that is again an admission of this particular  petitioner he admitted that he is perpetrating this fraud of indicating that he's a united states citizen when he's not for the purpose of obtaining employment and you know that yet so we go to the parent thought to call in the parent that a c puts a burden on the employer to ensure that it is hiring a legal person but about a person who best misrepresents his citizenship to a private employer does so for the purpose of evading that particular sections prohibition of an employer from hiring aliens who are not authorized to work so be it so basically the way the government reads this statute any alien who does not have a green card who represents himself or herself to be united states citizen is inadmissible as the end of the story yes yes and we oral representation than this person has falsely mis misrepresented themselves that's not what the court said in those cases there happened to be in i nine and therefore the courts indicated that yes he represents represented himself  nine but it could have just as easily been the same facts of this case i presume where where the individual could have represented himself orally perhaps or we don't have a ninety nine but the person  that they represent themselves as as a citizen so i the way when when this court is faced with the i think when this court is faced with the actual language of the statutes certainly seems to imply that anyone who falsely misrepresents themselves for the purpose of the gaining employment in states is inadmissible then you have the two more decisions to which we would hope that this court would substantially defer and on top of that you have the wealth of six or seven other circuit courts across the country who have found under extremely similar facts and although and i nine might have been present in those cases that it found under extremely similar values that i nine is sort of referenced in thirteen thirteen person seeking employment is to sign and i not sure but i but i think we're getting if i may to hypertechnical into the actual subject of that particular provision because when when the they wrote the former provision two twelve a six c two when congress wrote that and drafted it it said any alien who falsely represents himself or or falsely represents himself to be a citizen of the united states for purposes of employment or me for a purpose or benefit under this chapter and then it has for instance and talking about that point provision so it's talking about there any person who misrepresents him self it's not talking about the employer solve a geisha but they're cross referencing to other statute or i don't understand yeah so and this is you know the state the very same statute and provision that all of these other courts including the b i have have looked at and come to this conclusion that two children works as a handyman he has it approved by one thirty he's to forty five i qualified he has a criminal conviction for receiving stolen goods that's either a petty offense or there's a wa every gratian petition to forty five all i means he has a previous petition that was filed before april thirtieth two thousand and one i call to get out of jail free you pay an extra fee of one thousand dollars and even though you enter the united states illegally that is waived right but if the government's position stands here he's in atl ineligible because he's inadmissible that's that's correct