Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Moses, 148 F.3d 277, 282 (2d Cir.1998)). Here, it is undisputed that the INS first physically located Trejo-Arroyo and determined his presence in the United States was illegal in August 2003, when he applied for a work permit. Thus, pursuant to Clarke, we must decide whether the INS should have discovered Trejo-Arroyo’s illegal presence earlier, “with the exercise of diligence typical of law enforcement authorities.” 312 F.3d at 1346-47 (citations omitted). In United States v. Mercedes, 287 F.3d 47, 55 (2d Cir.2002), a ease similar to this one, the Second Circuit held that it was not unreasonable for a listing of false names and different dates and places of birth to delay the INS’s determination that the defendant had previously been deported. See also Herrera-Ordones, 190 F.3d at 511 (<HOLDING>); Bencomo-Castillo, 176 F.3d at 1303 (holding 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that both agent and principal will be liable when the agent acts within the scope of his employment but for his own purposes (B) holding that defendant was not resident of his mothers household even though his drivers license listed his mothers address and he received mail there because he expressed a belief that his residence was in a different location than his mothers home he rented and occupied his own residence and he testified that he was only living with his mother after expiration of his lease until he could find another place to live (C) holding alien was found when he admitted previous deportation and true identity to ins agent not when he used alias during jailhouse interview with ins agent agents investigated his identity with appropriate methodical diligence and could not have known his identity prior to his admissions (D) holding that while an agents knowledge is imputed to the principal due to the identity of interests that is presumed when an agent acts within the scope of an agency relation this rule does not operate in the converse and the agent cannot be imputed with the information which its principal has failed to give it (E) holding that ins officials did not exercise sufficient diligence in ascertaining the defendants illegal status when although the defendant provided a false name ins had his fingerprints
Output (English): holding that while an agents knowledge is imputed to the principal due to the identity of interests that is presumed when an agent acts within the scope of an agency relation this rule does not operate in the converse and the agent cannot be imputed with the information which its principal has failed to give it