FI LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als

Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### S e p t e m b e r 14, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT YASS I NE KECHKAR,

P eti ti o n er, v. A L B E R T O R . G O N Z A L E S, A t t orney G e n e r a l ; B U R E A U O F C U S T O M & I M M I GR ATI ON ENFO RCEM ENT, a fe d e r a l g o v e rn m e n ta g e n c y; N U R I A PR E N D E S, Fi el d O ffi ce D ire c to r fo r D e ten tio n a n d R e m o v a l,

R espon den t s. N os . 06- 9583 & 06- 9595 ( N o. A 98- 426- 000) ( P e t i t i o n fo rRe v i e w)

OR DER B efor e HA RTZ , EBEL , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es. T he R es pondent s have r eques t ed thatw e publ i s h ourpr i oror derand ju d g m e n t in th is c a s e , Kechkarv. G onz al es , N o s . 0 6 - 9 5 8 3 , 0 6 - 9 5 9 5 , 2 0 0 7 WL 1991162 ( 10th C i r . J ul y11, 2007) . U pon cons i der at i on, the mot i on i s gr ant ed. T h e a ttac h e d o p in io n is s u b stitu ted fo r th e o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t p re v io u sly fi l ed on J ul y11, 2007. E n ter e d fo r th e C o u rt,

E li sab eth A . S h u m ak er, C lerkA ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, thi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tthe det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. FI LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als

Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### Ju l y 11, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT YASS I NE KECHKAR,

P eti ti o n er, v. A L B E R T O R . G O N Z A L E S, A t t orney G e n e r a l ; B U R E A U O F C U S T O M & I M M I GR ATI ON ENFO RCEM ENT, a fe d e r a l g o v e rn m e n ta g e n c y; N U R I A PR E N D E S, Fi el d O ffi ce D ire c to r fo r D e ten tio n a n d R e m o v a l,

R espon den t s. N os . 06- 9583 & 06- 9595

ON P E T I T I ON F OR RE VI E W F RO M T HE BOAR D O F I M M I GR ATI ON APP EALS

( B I A N o. A 98- 426- 000) S ub m i t t ed o n the bri efs: * L aw r ence E . D avi s , L aw r ence E . D avi s , P. C . , O kl ahoma C i ty , O kl ahoma, for P eti ti o n er. D avi d V . B ernal , A s s i s t antD i r ect or , L i za S. M ur ci a, A t t orney , O ffi ce of I m m i gr at i on L i t i gat i on, U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce, C i vi l D i vi s i on, W ashi ng t on , D . C . , for R espon den tA l bert o R . G on zal es.-2-

B efor e HA RTZ , EBEL , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es. EBEL , C i r cui tJ udge.

Pet i t i onerY as s i ne K echka r , a nat i ve and c i t i zen of M or occo, chal l enges deci s i ons bythe B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( B I A ) di s m i s s i ng hi s appea l fr om a re m o v al ord er a n d d en y ing h is m o ti o n to reo p en the p roc ee d ing s. A t th e h ea rt o f th i s c a s e i s K e c h k a r ’ s p u rp o r t e d m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f U . S . c i t i z e n s h i p . We di s m i s s i n partand denyi n partthe pet i t i on i n N o. 06- 9583, r egar di ng hi s appea l t o the B I A , and w e denythe pet i t i on i n N o. 06- 9595, r egar di ng hi s m ot i on t o the B IA t o reope n the proceedings. B AC KGROU ND K e c h k a r e n ter e d th is c o u n tryin 1 9 9 9 to p u rsu e a m a ste r’s d e g re e in bus i nes s admi ni s tr at i on. B utaft ers ever al y ear s , he mar r i ed a U . S. ci t i zen a nd sto p p e d a tten d in g sc h o o l. I n N ovember2004, the D epart m entof H om el and Secur i ty( D H S) char ged hi m as r emovabl e for“fa i l [i ng] t o m ai nt ai n orcompl yw i th the condi t i ons of the noni m m i gr ants t atus underw hi ch [he ] [w as ] admi t t ed” a nd for“r emai n[i ng] i n the U n ite d S ta te s . . . lo n g e r t h a n p e rm itte d .” A d m in . R . a t 2 1 9 . See 8 U. S . C. § 1227( a) ( 1) ( B ) & ( C ) ( I ) . D H S l at eradded a char ge of mi s r epr es ent i ng U ni t ed St at es ci t i zens hi p. R egar di ng the adde d char ge, D H S al l eged thatK echka rhad,-3-

o n F eb rua ry6 , 2 0 0 2 , co m p let ed an em p loym en t- eli g ibil ityv erificati o n fo rm ( For m I - 9) t o w or k forD i l l ar d’ s , I nc. , and che cked a box on the form i ndi cat i ng th a t h e w a s “ [ a ] c iti z e n o r n a tio n a l o f th e U n ited S tate s.” A d m in . R . at 1 8 5 ; s ee als o i d. at216. T he r emai ni ng tw o boxes on the form , for“A L aw ful Per m anent R e s id e n t” a n d “ A n a lie n a u th o ri z e d to w o rk ,” w e re le f t b la n k . Id. at185. In D ec em b er 2 0 0 4 , K ec h k ar’s w ife fil ed an ali en -relat ive p eti ti o n (F o rm I-1 3 0 ), a p re c u rso r to K e c h k a r b e in g a b le to se e k a dju stm e n t to law f u l-p e rm a n e n tr es i dents t atus . I n February2005, K echka rappea r ed befor e an I m m i gr at i on J udge (IJ) and so u g h t a co n ti n u an ce o f th e re m o v al pro ce ed ing s b ase d o n h is w ife’s pendi ng pet i t i on. H e al s o admi t t ed thathe w as r emovabl e as i ni t i al l ychar ged and thathe w as notauthor i zed t o w or k atD i l l ar d’ s , buthe cont es t ed the cha r ge of m i s r epr es ent i ng ci t i zens hi p. T he I J s chedul ed anotherhear i ng and s t at ed thathe w oul d not“ca rrythe ca s e anyfur ther ” i f he found a mi s r epr es ent at i on of c itiz e n s h ip . Id. at118. A tthe s ubs equenthear i ng, K echka rt es t i fi ed thathe di d notchec k the “ci t i zen ornat i onal ” box and thathe l eftal l of the boxes bl ank bec aus e he di d not fi tanyof the ca t egor i es . H e furthert es t i fi ed thathe bel i eved a “nat i onal ” w as “s om ebodythatl i ves her e” or“s om ebodyr el at ed t o a nat i on i n s om e w ayand fas hi on. ” Id. at138, 139. K echka ral s o s ubm i t t ed a l ett erfr om a fr i end s t at i ng thathe w as w i th K echka rw hen he f i l l ed outthe ver i fi cat i on form and that K e c h k a r sa id “ h e w a s g o in g to lea v e th e se c tio n b lan k a b o u t h is a u th o riz a tio n to-4-

w or k. ” Id. at 18 9 . T h e f ri en d co n ce d ed , h o w ev er, th at he d id n o t see the fo rm aft erK echka rcompl et ed i tand coul d not“s ayi f [K echka r ] actual l yl efti tbl ank. ” Id. M el ani e C arr ol l , the oper at i onal s ecr et aryatD i l l ar d’ s r es pons i bl e for pr oces s i ng the ver i fi cat i on form s , t es t i fi ed thats he w as “99. 9[% ] ” s ur e thatno o n e a t D illa rd ’s w o u ld h a v e c h e c k e d th e b o x if K e c h k a r h a d le f

t it b la n k . Id. at 168. She t es t i fi ed thati f the box had be en l eftbl ank, the form “w oul d have e i ther b e e n g iv e n b a c k to [ K e c h k a r] ” o r “ w e w o u ld [ h a v e ] a tta c h [ e d ] a re d fla g . . . s ay i ng empl oy ee di d notchec k box. ” Id. at166. Fi nal l y , C arr ol l t es t i fi ed that D i l l ar d’ s ul t i m at el yfi r ed K echka rfor“di s hones ty ” bec aus e he “ w as put t i ng [$] 4. 99 s t i cker s on . . . s w eat er s thatw er e not[$] 4. 99. ” Id. at173. T he I J found thatK echka rhad i n fac tchec ked the “c i t i zen ornat i onal ” box, ther ebym aki ng a fa l s e r epr es ent at i on of ci t i zens hi p. T he I J al s o r ej ect ed any s ug ge s t i on tha tK e c hk a rmayha ve c he c ke d the bo x thi nk i ng he w a s a U . S. nat i onal . Fi nal l y , the I J found thatK echka r ’ s w i fe’ s pendi ng al i en- r el at i ve pet i t i on coul d notj us t i fya cont i nuance beca us e K echka rw as i nadmi s s i bl e— and ther efor e i nel i gi bl e fora s t atus adj us t m ent

— bas ed on hi s m i s r epr es ent at i on of ci t i zens hi p. K echka rw as or der ed r emoved t o M or occo. O n appea l t o the B I A , K echka radvanc ed tw o ar gum ent s . Fi r s t , he ar gued

“ th a t th e IJ e rre d a s a m a tter o f law w h e n h e d e n ied [ K e c h k a r’s ] re q u e st to co n ti n u e h is pro ce ed ing s to a ll o w fo r th e a djud icati o n o f h is U . S . cit izen sp o u se’s-5-

i m m edi at e r el at i ve vi s a pet i t i on. ” Id. at 75 . S ec o n d , h e a rgu ed “tha t th e IJ a b u se d h is d isc re tio n a rya u th o rityin d e n y in g [ K e c h k a r’s ] re q u e st to v o lu n tar ily depart . ” Id. T he B I A di s m i s s ed the appe al . I tfi r s tdet erm i ned thatK echka rhad fa il ed to sh o w g o o d ca u se fo r a c o n ti n u an ce , g iven that h e w as in eli g ible fo r a sta tu s a dju stm e n t. T h e B IA e x p lain e d th a t K e c h k a r h a d n o t d e m o n stra ted c lea rly and bey ond doubtthathe ei ther( 1) di d notchec k the “c i t i zen ornat i onal ” box; or ( 2) chec ked the box, bel i evi ng he w as a U . S. nat i onal . T he B I A fur ther det erm i ned thatK echka rw as i nel i gi bl e forvol unt arydepartur e bec aus e he l acke d good m or al char act erdue t o hi s fal s e- ci t i zens hi p cl ai m and hi s t erm i nat i on for di s hones ty . I n r es pons e t o thes e det erm i nat i ons , K echka rfi l ed a pe t i t i on for r evi ew i n thi s court , w hi ch w as docket ed as N o. 06- 9583. K echka ral s o m oved the B I A t o r econs i deri t s cont i nuance det erm i nat i on and t o r eopen the pr ocee di ngs s o he coul d s eek a s t atus adj us t m entbas ed on the r ece ntappr oval of hi s w i fe’ s al i en- r el at i ve pet i t i on. T he B I A deni ed the mot i on, c o n c lu d in g th a t K e c h k a r w a s s til l in e lig ib le fo r a dju stm e n t b e c a u se o f h is m isre p re se n tatio n . K e c h k a r’s p e tit io n fo r re v iew o f th a t d e n ial w a s d o c k e ted in thi s courtas N o. 06- 9595. D I SC US SI ON I . Pet i t i on N o. 06- 9583 B eca us e a s i ngl e mem berof the B I A deci ded K echka r ’ s appea l and i s s ued a br i ef opi ni on, “w e r evi ew the B I A ’ s deci s i on as the fi nal agenc ydet erm i nat i on-6-

and l i m i tourr evi ew t o i s s ues s peci fi cal l yaddr es s ed ther ei n. ” D i al l o v. G onz al es , 447 F. 3d 1274, 1279 ( 10th C i r . 2006) . T he B I A uphel d the I J ’ s deni al s of a cont i nuance and vol unt arydepartur e. W e gene r al l yl ack j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i der th e s e d is c re tio n a ry d e te rm in a tio n s . See Ye rko v ich v . A sh c ro ft , 381 F. 3d 990, 995 ( 10th C i r . 2004) ( “hol d[i ng] that8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 2) ( B ) ( i i ) bar [s ] r evi ew of [a n ] IJ’s discreti o n aryd ec isi o n d en y ing [a ] pe ti ti o n er’s m o ti o n fo r a cont i nuance ”) ; 8 U . S. C . § 1229c( f) ( pr ovi di ng that“[n] o courts hal l have juri sd ict ion o v er a n ap p ea l from d en ial o f a req u est fo r an o rde r of v o lun tary departur e”) . O urj ur i s di ct i on r eac hes onl ys o faras thos e det erm i nat i ons pr es ent c o n s titu tio n a l c la im s o r q u e s tio n s o f la w in v o lv in g s ta tu to ry c o n s tru c tio n . D ia llo , 4 4 7 F . 3 d at 12 8 1 -82 (discu ssing the R ea l I D A ct’s effe ct on o u r j u ri sd ict ion ). A . C ont i nuance s K echka rdoes notar gue thatthe deni al of a c ont i nuance vi ol at ed any cons t i tut i onal r i ght . A nd the onl yl egal i s s ue w e ca n di s cern s t ems fr om the B I A ’ s cons truct i on of 8 U . S. C . § 1182( a) ( 6) ( C ) ( i i ) ( I ) as r ender i ng K echka r ineligible fo r adjustm en t of statu s an d , there fo re, un ab le t o sh o w g o o d ca u se fo r a cont i nuance t o pur s ue an a dj us t m ent . T hi s s t atut orypr ovi s i on r eads : “A nyal i en w ho fal s el yr epr es ent s , orhas fal s el yr epr es ent ed, hi m s el f orher s el f t o be a ci t i zen of

the U ni t ed St at es foranypurpos e orbenef i tunder[C hapt er12 ofA n i nadmi s s i bl e al i en i s notel i gi bl e foradj us t m entt o perm anent - r es i dent 1 statu s. 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 5 (a). -7- T itl e 8 ] (in c lu d in g se c tio n 1 3 2 4 a o f th is titl e ) o r a n yo th e r F e d e ra l o r S tate law is i nadmi s s i bl e. ” Id. 1 K echka rar gues that§ 1182’ s l anguage does notcovera mi s r epr es ent at i on o f c iti z e n sh ip m a d e in c o n n e c tio n w ith p riv a te e m p lo ym e n t b e c a u se th e a lien is n o ts e e k i n g “ a n yp u rp o s e o rb e n e fi tu n d e rth i s c h a p t e r . ” 8 U. S . C. § 1 1 8 2 (a )(6 )(C )(ii)(I). B u t h e o ffe rs n o a n a ly sis a n d c ites n o a u th o rityfo r th is pr opos i t i on otherthan the conc urr i ng opi ni on i n A teka v . A sh c ro ft , 384 F. 3d 954, 958 ( 8th C i r . 2004) , w hi ch emphas i zed thatthe i s s ue K echka rnow r ai s es w as not b e fo r e th e c o u r t . F u r th e r , h e o v e r l o o k s th e s t a tu t e ’ s s p e c i fi c r e fe r e n c e t o 8 U. S . C. § 1324a, ent i t l ed “U nl aw ful empl oym entof al i ens . ” I tappea r s s el f- evi dentthat an al i en w ho m i s r epr es ent s ci t i zens hi p t o obt ai n pr i vat e empl oym entdoes s o, at the veryl eas t , forthe “purpos e” of evadi ng § 1324a( a) ( 1) ( A ) ’ s pr ohi bi t i on on “a p e rso n o r o th e r e n tity ” k n o w in g lyh irin g a lien s w h o a re n o t au th o riz e d to w o rk in th is c o u n try . K e c h k a r’s c o n stru c tio n o f § 1 1 8 2 is w ith o u t m e rit. B . V o lun taryD ep arture K echk ar nextargues that hi s const i tuti on al ri gh t s w ere vi olat ed b ecause “[t ] he evi dence pr es ent ed di d nots uppor ta deni al of [vol unt arydepartur e] . ” P et’r B r. at 31 . W h il e c o n sti tuti o n al claim s inv o lving v o lun taryd ep arture a re w ith in o u r j u ri s d ic tio n , se e D ia llo , 4 4 7 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 1 , K e c h k a r’s a rg u m e n t is-8-

nothi ng m or e than a c hal l enge t o the age ncy ’ s di s cr et i onaryand fa ct - fi ndi ng exer ci s es cl oaked i n cons t i tut i onal garb. Such chal l enges “r emai n out s i de the s cope of j udi ci al r evi ew . ” Id. A n a lien d o e s n o t p re se n t a c o lo ra b le cons t i tut i onal cl ai m capa bl e of a voi di ng the j ur i s di ct i onal barbyar gui ng thatthe evidence w as i nco rr ect l yw ei gh ed, i nsuffi ci entl ycon si dered, or suppo rt s a d iffe re n t o u tc o m e . S e e Bu g ay o n gv . I NS , 442 F. 3d 67, 72 ( 2d C i r . 2006) ( per cu ri am ). A cc o rdin g ly , w e lac k juri sd ict ion to co n side r th e B IA ’s vol unt ary - departur e det erm i nat i on. I I . Pet i t i on N o. 06- 9595 K e c h k a r a rg u e s th a t th e B IA sh o u ld h a v e re o p e n e d h is c a se so h e c o u ld have pur s ued a s t atus adj us t m entaft erD H S appr oved hi s w i fe’ s al i en- r el at i ve p e titio n . W e re v ie w fo r a n a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . Huer ta v. G onz al es , 443 F. 3d 753, 757 ( 10th C i r . 2006) . “The B I A abus es i t s di s cr et i on w hen i t s deci s i on p ro v id e s n o ra tio n a l ex p lan a tio n , ine x p lica b lyd e p a rts f ro m e sta b lish e d p o licie s, is devoi d of anyr eas oni ng, orcont ai ns onl ys um m aryorconcl us orys t at ement s . ” G alvezP i neda v. G onz al es , 427 F. 3d 833, 838 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ( quot at i on o m itted). T he B I A decl i ned t o r eopen the pr ocee di ngs , expl ai ni ng thatK echka rhad “notpr es ent ed anynew evi dence s uffi ci entt o di s turb [the] fi ndi ng that[he] m ade a fa l s e cl ai m t o ci t i zens hi p and thus i s notpr i m a fa ci e el i gi bl e foradj us t m entof-9-

s t atus . ” A dm i n. R . at2 ( i t al i cs om i t t ed) . K echka ratt acks thi s expl anat i on on thr ee gr ounds . Fi r s t , he as s ert s thatthe governm entdi d notm eeti t s bur den of p ro v in g th a t h e c h e c k e d th e “ c itiz e n o r n a tio n a l” b o x o n th e v e ri fic a tio n fo rm . B u t “ [ b ]e c a u s e [ K e c h k a r] c o n c e d e d re m o v a b ility, th e b u r d e n s h i f t e dt o h i m to s how thathe w as both s t atut or i l yel i gi bl e forr el i ef f r om r emoval and thatthe A t t orneyG ener al s houl d exer ci s e hi s di s cr et i on t o gr antthatr el i ef. ” Schr oeckv. G onz al es , 429 F. 3d 947, 952 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ( emphasi s added) . A nd w e s ee n o th in g in th e re c o rd in d ica tin g th a t K e c h k a r sh o w e d “ c lea rlya n d b e y o n d d o u b t” th a t h e d id n o t c h e c k th e b o x . See 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 2 9 a(c )(2)(A ). N e x t, he a ss e rts th a t th e re w a s n o e v id e n c e in d ica tin g th a t h e “ m e a n t to c laim c iti z e n sh ip ra th e r th a n n a tio n a lity ” if h e d id c h e c k th e “ c iti z e n o r n a tio n a l” box. Pet ’ rB r . at30. I tw as K echka r ’ s bur den, how ever , t o s how thathe i nt ended t o cl ai m s t atus as a nat i onal , and the B I A ’ s r ej ect i on of anys uch i nt ent i on w as n o t ir ra tio n a l in lig h t o f h is e q u iv o c a l te s tim o n yo n th e s u bje c t. See A dm i n. R . at 1 3 8 (“ I g u e ss a n a tio n a l is so m e b o d yth a t li v e s h e re .”); i d. at139 ( “W el l , I m ean a n ati o n al i s so m eb o d yrelated to a n ati o n in so m e w ayan d fa sh ion . ”). F in a lly , K e c h k a r c o n ten d s th a t “[ p ]riv a te e m p lo ym e n t h a s n o t b e e n h e ld to b e a b e n e fit u n d e r th e A c t.” A p lt. B r. at 3 0 . F o r th e re a so n s e x p re ss e d a b o v e in P a rt I.A ., th a t co n ten tio n fa ils h e re a s w e ll.-10-

W e hol d thatthe B I A di d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n decl i ni ng t o r eopen the proceed i ng s. C ONC L US I ON Th e p e t i t i o n fo rr e v i e w i n No. 0 6 - 9 5 8 3 i s DI SM I SS ED i n p a r ta n d DEN I ED i n p a r t . T h e p e t i t i o n fo rr e v i e w i n No . 0 6 - 9 5 9 5 i s DE NI E D.