Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02962/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02962-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Ashcroft
Respondent
Elija Kebaso Ateka
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-2962

___________

Elija Kebaso Ateka, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review of an Order of

v. * the Board of Immigration Appeals.

*

John Ashcroft, *

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: June 14, 2004

Filed: September 24, 2004 

___________

Before MURPHY, BRIGHT, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges. 

___________

MURPHY, Circuit Judge.

Elija Kebaso Ateka, a native and citizen of Kenya, petitions for review from

a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming an immigration judge's

ruling that he was ineligible for lawful permanent resident status because he had

made a false claim of citizenship on an I-9 employment eligibility form. We deny

the petition.

Ateka entered the United States in August 1996 on a nonimmigrant student

visa. Instead of attending school in North Carolina as authorized, he moved to

Minnesota and got a job as a nurse's aide at the Southview Walker nursing home in

Appellate Case: 03-2962 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/24/2004 Entry ID: 1815087 
-2-

May 1997. In order to get the job Ateka had to fill out a Form I-9 in March 1997

relating to his employment eligibility, and he checked the first box on the form to

indicate that he was "a citizen or national of the United States." In July 1997 Ateka

married a United States citizen, and his wife subsequently filed a visa petition on his

behalf concurrent with his application for adjustment of status. 

The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) interviewed Ateka in

January 1998 about his eligibility for adjustment of status. When the INS officer

asked whether he had made a false claim to United States citizenship on his Form I9, he answered three times that he had. He said he had done so because "[he] needed

to survive, [he] had no money, [he] had no other options." On May 13, 1998, the

INS denied Ateka's adjustment of status application and charged him with

removability for overstaying his student visa and for falsely claiming United States

citizenship to obtain a benefit under the Immigration and Nationality Act or other

federal or state law. At a hearing on September 22, 1998, Ateka conceded

removability for remaining longer than permitted, but he denied having falsely

claimed United States citizenship. He requested relief from removal and adjustment

of status to that of permanent resident under 8 U.S.C. § 1255. 

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA)

was enacted on September 30, 1996, some time before Ateka filled out his Form I-9.

IIRIRA provides in part that:

Any alien who falsely represents, or has falsely represented, himself or

herself to be a citizen of the United States for any purpose or benefit

under this chapter (including section 1324a of this title) or any other

Federal or State law is inadmissible.

8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I). Section 1324a of the statute makes it unlawful

knowingly to hire or employ any alien who is not authorized to work in the United

States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1324a. The immigration judge concluded that under IIRIRA

Appellate Case: 03-2962 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/24/2004 Entry ID: 1815087 
1

Section 1255(a) provides that an alien seeking adjustment of status from

nonimmigrant must be "admissible to the United States for permanent residence." 

-3-

an alien who has falsely represented himself to be a United States citizen in order to

procure employment is inadmissible to the United States. He found Ateka

inadmissible because he had made such a false representation and concluded that he

was therefore ineligible for adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a).1

 Ateka

appealed, and a member of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the

immigration judge's decision without opinion, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 1003.1(a)(7).

Ateka timely petitioned for review.

Ateka argues that the Board erred in finding that he had made a false

representation of citizenship, that it misapplied the law on the legal consequences of

such a misrepresentation, and it should not have affirmed without opinion. We treat

the immigration judge's opinion as that of the Board when it has affirmed without a

written opinion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(a)(7); Dominguez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 678,

679 n.1 (8th Cir. 2003). The Board's findings of fact will be disturbed only if

unsupported by substantial evidence. Negele v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 981, 982 (8th Cir.

2004). We review the Board's conclusions of law de novo, with substantial deference

to its interpretations of statutes and regulations administered by the agency.

Regalado-Garcia v. INS, 305 F.3d 784, 787 (8th Cir. 2002).

Ateka contends that when he checked the box on the Form I-9 indicating that

he was a "citizen or national of the United States," he was making what he thought

might be the truthful representation that he was a "national of the United States." The

immigration judge found this claim not credible in light of Ateka's multiple

admissions to an INS officer that he had made a false representation of United States

citizenship on his Form I-9 in order to procure employment. At his interview Ateka

initially did not remember which box he had checked on the form, and he never

suggested to the INS officer that he thought he was truthfully representing that he was

Appellate Case: 03-2962 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/24/2004 Entry ID: 1815087 
2

The quoted language comes from his motion to expedite in October 2002; his

supplemental submission to the Board in October 2001 refers to that question as the

only issue on appeal, and his original brief in June 1999 states the issue similarly. 

-4-

a national of the United States. Moreover, in his testimony before the immigration

judge he admitted that he did not know what a "national" was and that he had

knowingly misrepresented his employment eligibility when he completed the Form

I-9. Given his prior statements and his testimony, there was substantial evidence to

support the immigration judge's finding that Ateka had intentionally made a false

representation of United States citizenship in order to procure employment.

Ateka also now argues that making a false representation of citizenship in order

to procure employment does not necessarily make an alien inadmissible because

employment is not a "purpose or benefit under [the Immigration and Nationality Act]

or any other Federal or State law." Ateka failed to raise this argument before the

immigration judge or in his appeal to the Board. He in fact explicitly stated in his

filings before the Board that his appeal raised "the sole question of whether the mere

checking of the first box on a Form I-9 . . . can be interpreted as constituting an

unequivocal false claim to US citizenship."2

 The Attorney General contends that we

cannot consider Ateka's "purpose or benefit" argument since it was not raised before

the Board.

The Immigration and Naturalization Act provides that a court may review a

final order of removal only if "the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies

available to the alien as of right." 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). If a petitioner fails to raise

a particular issue when he appeals to the Board and has not presented the Board with

the need or opportunity to address that issue, the petitioner has not exhausted

administrative remedies with respect to it. The IIRIRA provision at issue in his

immigration proceeding is short, and he focused his appeal argument to the Board on

whether he had made a false representation. He raised no argument then about the

next few words in the statute. We accordingly decline to address Ateka's unexhausted

Appellate Case: 03-2962 Page: 4 Date Filed: 09/24/2004 Entry ID: 1815087 
3

Cited at AILA InfoNet at Doc. No. 01041902.

-5-

argument regarding whether employment is a "purpose or benefit" within the meaning

of § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I). That issue is not properly before us. Cf. Halabi v. Ashcroft,

316 F.3d 807, 808 (8th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (declining to address arguments

regarding petitioner's recent marriage and its effect on his immigration status because

he had not exhausted his administrative remedies concerning his motion to reopen).

Finally, Ateka argues that the Board misapplied its streamlining regulations

when it summarily affirmed the immigration judge's decision without a written

opinion, and he asks that we therefore remand his case for reconsideration. We

generally lack jurisdiction to review the Board's decision to use its streamlined

procedure. Ngure v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 975, 988 (8th Cir. 2004). Ateka contends he

fits within an exception to the jurisdiction rule left open in Ngure–where there have

been new legal developments which cast doubt on the immigration judge's decision.

See id. There we referenced Haoud v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 201 (1st Cir. 2003), an

immigration case remanded by the First Circuit after it was unable to determine

whether the Board had "found a legitimate means" to distinguish another Board

decision which had almost identical facts with` a different outcome and which had

been cited by the petitioner on his appeal to the Board. 

Ateka's situation is very different, and the developments he cites are unlike the

intervening precedent in Haoud. Ateka reports that the Texas Service Center may not

penalize aliens who have checked the first box on Form I-9 if there is no other

specific evidence of a false claim to United States citizenship, citing a meeting

discussion in April 2001.3

 Not only does this citation not have the precedential value

of a Board opinion, but in Ateka's case there is other evidence of a false claim to

citizenship. Ateka also cites two Board decisions in support of his new argument that

Appellate Case: 03-2962 Page: 5 Date Filed: 09/24/2004 Entry ID: 1815087 
4

Matter of Tachiwana, 25 Immig. Rptr. B1-165 (B.I.A. May 2, 2002)

(unpublished); Matter of [Unknown Ghanan National] (B.I.A. June 5, 2000)

(unpublished), available at http://www.ilw.com/lawyers/immigdaily/cases/2000,1011-

scan1.shtm.

-6-

employment is not a "purpose or benefit" for purposes of § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I).4

 Not

only were these cases based on a preIIRIRA statutory provision, but Ateka failed to

bring them to the attention of the Board even though they had been issued before he

made his final submissions. In these circumstances, we lack jurisdiction to review the

Board's decision to use its streamlined procedure.

 For these reasons the petition is denied.

BRIGHT, Circuit Judge, concurring separately.

I concur with the majority that substantial evidence in the record supports the

immigration judge's conclusion that Ateka had intentionally made a false

representation of United States citizenship in completing Form I-9 to seek

employment from an employer. I write separately to underscore that this opinion is

not to be applied as a per se bar to an immigrant's residence status in other cases

where an immigrant may have made a false statement of United States citizenship to

obtain private employment. 

Whether such misstatement in an application and, thereafter, obtaining of

private employment amounts to a "benefit under this chapter," as that phrase is used

in section 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I), is an important question which was not raised nor

decided in this case. Such a determination remains for another case on another day.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-2962 Page: 6 Date Filed: 09/24/2004 Entry ID: 1815087