# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 4- 33 97

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Hum ph rey Ezek ie l Et en y i

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

v.

Lore tt a E. Ly

nc h, At to rn ey

Gene ral of t he Uni te d S ta te s

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt

__ __ __ __ __ __

Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of a n Ord er o f th e Bo ard of I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Ju ne 9, 2 01 5

Fil ed : Au gu st 21 , 20 15

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re GRUENDER, MELLOY, and BENTON, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

GRUENDER, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

Hum ph rey Ezek ie l Eten y i, a na ti ve an d ci ti zen of Ken y a, pe ti ti on s fo r rev ie w

of th e Bo ard of I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s’ (“ BIA”) de ci si on di sm is si ng hi s ap pe al fro m

an or de r o f r e mo va l. Bec au se su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce su pp or ts th e BIA’s fin di ng th at

Eten y i fa ls el y

cla im ed cit iz en sh ip on a Fo rm I-9 , we den y

hi s p et it io n.Eten y i cam e to th e Uni te d St at es on a st ud en t vi sa in 20 06

. Afte r he gr ad ua te d

in 20 11

, he rem ai ne d in th e co un try an d m arri ed a Uni te d St at es ci ti zen

. So on aft er

th ey m arri ed

, Et e n yi ’s wife su bm it te d a pe ti ti on fo r an im m ed ia te -rel at iv e vi sa on

Eten y i’s be ha lf. Eten y i co nc ur ren tl y fil ed an ap pl ic at io n to ad jus t hi s st at us to th at

of a la wfu l pe rm an en t res id en t. Se e 8 U.S.C

. § 12 55 (a). The Dep art m en t of

Hom el an d Secu rit y (“ DHS”) den ie d Eten y i’s app li cat io n. DHS st at ed th at Eten y i’s

st at us co ul d no t b e a dju st ed be cau se he ha d fal se ly cl ai m ed th at he was a Uni te d

St at es cit iz en on a Fo rm

I-9 when he ap pl ie d fo r a job in 20 09

. 1

DHS se nt Eten y i a no ti ce to ap pe ar al le gi ng th at he was rem ov ab le be cau se of

th is fal se ci ti zen sh ip cl ai m , se e 8 U.S.C. § 12 27 (a)( 3) (D), an d be cau se he vi ol at ed th e

c on di ti on s of hi s no n- im m ig ran t st at us by rem ai ni ng in th e Uni te d St at e s a f t e r

co mp l et in g hi s st ud ie s, se e 8 U.S.C. § 12 27 (a)( 1) (C)( i). At a he ari ng be fo re an

im m ig rat io n jud ge (“ IJ ”), Eten y i ad m it te d th at he d i d n o t c o m pl y wit h th e st ud en t

vi sa

. Howev er, he de ni ed th at he ha d fal se ly cl ai med c i t i z e n s hi p on th e Fo rm I-9

. 2

Eten yi i n s t e ad co nt en de d th at th e fo rm ha d be en pr e-p op ul at ed wit h hi s pe rs on al

in fo rm at io n. Alt ho ug h he co nf irmed th at hi s na m e, ad dr es s, so ci al se cu rit y nu m be r,

an d d a t e o f b i r th were co rrec t, he cl ai m ed th at he di d no t no ti ce th e ch eck ed bo x

as se rti ng , un de r pe na lt y of pe rjury, th at he was a “ ci ti zen of th e Uni te d St at es .” The

IJ co ns id ered th e si gn ed Fo rm I-9 , Eten y i’s t es ti m on y , Eten y i’s s oc ia l s ecu rit y card

th at st at ed DHS au th or iz at io n was req ui red be fo re Eten y i co ul d wor k, an d ev id en ce

of Eten y i’s effo rts to en su re th at hi s so ci al se cu rit y card was accu rat e. Ult im at el y , th e

IJ co nc lu de d th at Eten y i’s te st im on y was no t cred ib le

. Bec au se Eten y i ha d fa ls el y

The Fo rm I-9

, al so kn own as t he Em pl oym en t El ig ib il it y

Veri fic at io n F or m , 1

at te st s to an in di vi du al ’s au th or iz at io n to wor k in th e Uni te d St at es

. Mar ga ret C.

Ja sp er, Leg al Alm an ac: The Law o f Im m ig rat io n § 8: 3 (3 d e d. 2 00 8)

.

Th i s c on ces si on do es no t m oo t th e cas e be cau se Eten y i ne ve rth el es s co ul d 2

ha ve be en el ig ib le fo r pe rm an en t res id en cy as an im m ed ia te rel at iv e of a U.S. ci ti zen

. Se e 8 U.S.C. § 12 55 (a).

-2

-rep res en te d hi m se lf as a ci ti zen of th e Uni te d St at es fo r a pu rp os e or be ne fit un de r th e

Im m ig rat io n an d Nati on al it y Act (“ th e Act” ), th e IJ he ld th at Eten y i was in el ig ib le fo r

ad jus tm en t o f st at us

. Se e 8 U.S.C. § 11 82 (a)( 6) (C)( ii )(I).

Eten y i ap pe al ed th e IJ ’s de ci si on to th e BIA. Dis m is si ng Eten y i’s ap pe al

, th e

BIA he ld th at Eten y i was rem ov ab le be cau se he ha d si gn ed th e Fo rm I-9 an d th ereb y

ad op te d it s co nt en ts

. In ad di ti on , th e BIA he ld th at th e IJ di d no t cl ear l y e r r i n it s

“ fin di ng of fact

. . . th at [Ete nyi] pr es en t e d [th is ] fal si fie d ev id en ce

. . . to ob ta in

un la wfu l em

pl oym en t.” Fi na ll y , th e BIA r e je c t e d Eten y i’s arg um en t th at 8 U.S.C.

§ 13 24 a(b )(5 ) pr ecl ud es th e us e of a Fo rm I-9 in a rem ov al pr oc eed in g. Eten y i no w

ap pe al s.

“ W e rev ie w th e BIA’s le ga l de te rm in at io ns de no vo , bu t we acco rd su bs ta nt ia l

de fere nc e to th e BIA’s in te rp ret at io n o f th e st at ut es an d reg ul at io ns it ad m in is te rs .”

Gar ci a- Gon za le

z v. Hol de r , 7 37 F.3 d 49 8, 50 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n

m ark s om it te d) (q uo ti ng Sp ac ek v. Hol de r , 68 8 F.3 d 53 6, 53 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 )). “ W e

wil l no t di st ur b th e BIA’s fin di ng s of fact un le ss th ey are un su pp or te d by su bs ta nt ia l

ev id en ce,” id

. , an d “ un le ss an y reas on ab l e ad jud ic at or wou ld be co m pe ll ed to

co nc lu de to th e co nt rary,” Gos wel l-Re nn er v. Hol de r , 76 2 F.3 d 69 6, 69 9 ( 8t h Ci r.

20 1 4 )

. Th o u g h we or di na ril y rev ie w on ly th e BIA’s de ci si on , “ we al so rev ie w th e

IJ ’s d eci si on as pa rt of th e fin al ag en cy act io n” if “ th e B I A a d o p t ed th e fin di ng s or

th e reas on in g of th e IJ .” G a r ci a- Gon za le z , 73 7 F.3 d at 50 0 (q uo ti ng Sp ac ek

, 68 8

F.3 d a t 5 38 ).

Eten y i rai se s se ve ral ch al le ng es on ap pe al

. Fi rs t, he arg ue s th at th e IJ erre d in

he r fact ua l fin di ng s be cau se , at on e po in t in he r or al op in io n, th e IJ st at ed th at Eten y i

pe rs on al ly “ ch eck ed th e bo x on Fo rm I-9 ,” whe reas Eten y i cl ai m s th at th e fo rm sh ows

th e ch eck was in se rte d by a co m pu te r. As an in it ia l m at te r, we rev ie w th e IJ ’s

fin di ng s on ly to th e ex te nt th at th ey were ad op te d by th e BIA. Se e id

. at 50 0. And

th e BIA d id no t ado pt th is sp eci fic fin di ng . Ins te ad , th e BIA fo un d t ha t Et en y i was

-3

-rem ov ab le “ reg ard le ss of whe th er he m ark ed th e bo x” on th e Fo r m I

- 9 be cau se he

ne ve rth el es s si gn ed th e f o r m a nd ad op te d th e fal se cl ai m of ci ti zen sh ip

. W e th us reject Eten y i’s co nt en ti on th at th e fact ua l fin di ng of th e IJ

, as ad op te d by th e BIA, is

un su pp or te d b y

su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce. Id

.

Thi s le ad s to Eten y i’s se co nd arg um en t. Eten y i as se rts th at

, ev en if th e BIA di d

no t fin d th at Eten y i pe rs on al ly m ark ed t h e b o x , t he BIA erre d whe n it acce pt ed th e

IJ ’s cred ib il it y de te rm in at io n reject in g Et e nyi’s cl ai m th at he ne ve r sa w th e

ci ti zen sh ip cl ai m in t h e p r e

- p op ul at ed fo rm

. Our cas e la w es ta bl is he s th at an IJ ’s

cred ib il it y de te rm in at io n rece iv es gr eat de fere nc e. Afte r al l, “ an im m ig rat io n jud ge

is in th e b es t p os it io n t o m ak e cre di bi li ty find in gs be cau se [s ]he se es th e wit ne ss as

th e te st im on y is gi ve n.” May o v. Ash cr of t

, 31 7 F.3 d 86 7, 87 1 (8 th Ci r.), as ame nd ed

(J un e 25 , 2 00 3) (q uo ti ng Har to on i v. I.N.S

. , 2 1 F.3 d 33 6, 34 2 (9 th Ci r. 19 94 )). An

IJ ’s ad ve rs e cred ib il it y fin di ng th eref or e is “ co nc lu si ve u nl es s an y reas on ab le

ad jud ic at or wou ld be co m

pe ll ed to co nc lu de to th e co nt rary.” R.K.N. v. Hol de r , 70 1

F.3 d 53 5, 53 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (q uo ti ng Ali v. Hol de r , 68 6 F.3 d 53 4, 53 8 (8 th Ci r.

20 12 )). And th e ev id en ce i n t hi s ca se do es no t co m pe l t ha t co nc lu si on

.

The ev id en ce at is su e, as no te d by th e IJ

, in cl ud ed th e Fo rm I-9 wit h th e fal se

cl ai m of ci ti zen sh ip

, Eten y i’s te st im on y th at he r e vi ewed ot he r in fo rm at io n on th e

fo rm be fo re si gn in g it

, Et en y i’s si gn at ur e, an d th e fact th at Eten y i, at th e ti m e he

co m pl et ed th e fo rm , ha d a co ll eg e-l ev el ed uc at io n fro m an Am eri can un iv ers it y

. Se e

R.K.N.

, 70 1 F.3 d at 53 8 (n ot in g th at th e IJ m us t su pp or t an ad ve rs e cred ib il it y fin di ng

wit h “ sp eci fic

, co ge nt reas on s fo r di sb el ie f” (q uo ti ng Oso no wo v. Muk as ey , 52 1 F.3 d

92 2, 92 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ))). Eten y i’s Fo rm I-9 st at ed t h a t th e ap pl ic an t cl ai m ed

ci ti zen sh ip “ un der pe na lt y of pe rjury,” an d di rect ly ab ov e Eten y i’s si gn at ur e, th e fo rm

read : “ I am aware th at fed eral law p ro vi de s fo r im pr is on m en t an d/ or fin es for fal se

st at em en ts or us e of fal se do cu m en ts in co nn ect io n wit h th e co m pl et io n of th is fo rm .”

Thi s co m bi na ti on of fact s an d ci rcu m st an ces le d th e I J t o r eject Eten y i’s cl ai m th at

he “ fai le d to read th e en ti re fo rm an d fai le d to no te th e bo x was ch eck ed .” Se e Mat te r

-4

-of D-R-

, 25 I. & N. Dec. 44 5, 45 3- 55 (BIA 20 11 ) (n ot in g th at an IJ m ay m ak e

reas on ab le in fere nc es fro m di rect an d ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce in th e reco rd ). In li gh t

of th e gr eat de fere nc e we affo rd to an IJ ’s cred ib il it y de te rm in at io n, we can no t sa y

th e ag en cy ’s co nc lu si on was u n s u p p or te d by su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce. Se e

Gar ci a- Gon za le

z , 73 7 F .3d at 5 00

.

In ad di ti on to th es e fact ua l co nt en ti on s, Eten y i rai se s se ve ral le ga l arg um en ts

, be gi nn in g wit h a ch al le ng e to th e st an da rd of rev ie w ap pl ie d by th e BIA. W e rev ie w

th es e le ga l ch al le ng es de no vo

. Id

. The Co de of Fed e r a l R e g u la ti on s pr ov id es th e

BIA wit h au th or it y to rev ie w th e le ga l co nc lu si on s of an im m ig rat io n jud ge de no vo

. 8 C.F.R. § 10 03 .1(d )(3 )(i i). Eten y i arg ue s th at th e BIA di d no t ap pl y th is st an d a rd

be cau se it di d no t “ as se ss [] whe th er th e ev id en ce pr es en te d by DHS su pp or te d th e

le ga l co n c l u s i o n t ha t th e DHS ha d m et it s bu rd en of pr ov in g rem ov ab il it y .” W e

di sa gr ee. In it s di sm is sa l, th e BIA affi rm at iv el y st at ed th at it rev ie ws le ga l is su es de

no vo , “ in cl ud in g whe th er th e pa rti es ha ve m et th e rel ev an t b u r d e n of pr oo f.” The

BIA th en no te d th at th e IJ ha d “ de te rm in ed th at th ere w a s cl ear an d co nv in ci ng

ev id en ce th e res po n d e n t was rem ov ab le .” The se st at em en ts

, co m bi ne d wit h th e

BIA’s in de pe nd en t rev ie w of th e ev id en ce, rev eal th at th e BIA em pl oyed th e pr op er

st an da rd of r ev ie w.

Eten y i ne xt arg ue s th at th e BIA sh ou ld ha ve fo un d th at DHS di d no t pr ov e by

cl ear an d co nv in ci ng ev id en ce th at Eten y i m ad e a fal se cl ai m of ci ti zen sh ip be cau se

th e Fo rm I-9 co ns ti tu te d th e “ so le ev id en ce” of th i s c l a i m. Thi s arg um en t fai ls

. W he n Eten y i si gn ed th e fo rm , he ad op te d it s co nt en ts an d th u s fal se ly rep res en te d

hi m se lf as a ci ti zen to a po te nt ia l em pl oyer. Acco rd in gl y , th is Fo rm I-9 ev id en ce is

su ffi ci en t. Se e Dak

ur a v. Hol de r , 77 2 F.3 d 99 4, 99 9 (4 th Ci r. 20 1 4 ) ( c o ll ect in g

cas es ).

Eten y i at te m

pt s to un de rm in e th is co nc lu si on in two way s. Fi rs t, he arg ue s th at

a Fo rm I-9 can no t se rv e as th e ba si s f o r a fal se cl ai m of ci ti zen sh ip in a rem ov al

-5

-pr oc eed in g. Se e Ch amb er of Co m m e r c e o f U .S. v. W hi ti ng , 5 63 U.S. - --, 13 1 S. Ct

19 68

, 19 74 (2 01 1) (n ot in g th at un de r 8 U.S.C. § 13 24 a(b )(5 ), a Fo rm I-9 “ m ay no t be

us ed fo r pu rp os es ot he r th an fo r en fo rcem en t of ” th e Im m ig rat io n Refo rm an d Co ntr ol

Act an d “ ot he r sp eci fie d pr ov is io ns of fed eral la w”). As th e B I A n o t e d

, we ha ve

sq ua rel y ad dr es se d th is arg um en t se ve ral ti m es , an d we co ns is te nt ly ha ve he ld th at

th e la ng ua ge of 8 U.S.C. § 13 24 a(b )(5 ) do es no t pr ecl ud e th e u s e of a Fo rm I-9 in

rem ov al pr oc eed in gs

. Se e, e.g

. , Dow ns v. Hol de r , 75 8 F.3 d 99 4, 99 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ).

Thi s ar gu m en t t he refo re i s fo recl os ed

.

Seco nd

, Eten y i reli es up on Ki ro ng v. Muk as ey , 52 9 F.3 d 80 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ),

to arg ue th at DHS m

us t pr es en t m or e th an th e Fo rm I-9 to sa ti sf y it s bu rd en of pr oo f.

Howev er, our an al y si s in Ki ro ng refl ect ed th e fo rm at of a p rio r ve rs io n o f th e Fo rm

I-9

, no t th e Fo rm I-9 at is su e in th is cas e. Id. at 8 01

. The pr ev io us fo rm at in cl ud ed

a bo x th at st at ed “ I am a ci ti zen or na ti on al o f t h e Uni te d St at es .” Id

. (em ph as is

ad de d)

. Thi s di sju nc ti ve ph ras in g ren de red th e al ie n’s st a te m en t am bi gu ou s as to

whe th er hi s “ at te st at io n in vo lv ed a cl ai m of ci ti zen sh ip or na ti on al it y .” Id

. at 80 5.

The bo x on Eten y i’s Fo rm I-9 s t a t e s on ly th at th e ap pl ic an t is “ [a] ci ti zen of th e

Uni te d St at es .” Bec au se th is ph ras i n g i s un am bi gu ou s, an al ie n who at te st s to th e

va li di ty of th e ch eck ed “ ci ti zen of th e Uni te d St at es ” bo x by si gn in g th is Fo rm I-9 ha s

m ad e an ob

jecti ve ly fal se rep res en t a t i on of ci ti zen sh ip —an d ci ti zen sh ip al on e.

Eten y i si gn ed an d su bm it te d a Fo rm I-9 wit h th is fo rm ul at io n to hi s em

pl oyer, an d we

th us req ui re n o a dd it io na l ev id en ce.

B e c au se Eten y i is in ad m is si bl e fo r pe rm an en t res id en ce, he is in el ig ib le fo r

rel ie f in th e fo rm

of a n adju st m en t of sta tu s. To qu al ify fo r ad jus tm en t of sta tu s, an

al ie n m us t de m on st rat e th at he is ad m is si bl e. Ki ro ng , 52 9 F.3 d at 80 4. And an al ie n

is in ad m is si bl e if he fal se ly rep res en ts hi m se lf “ to be a ci ti zen of th e Uni te d St at es fo r

an y pu rp os e or be ne fit ” un de r th e Act. 8 U.S.C. § 11 82 (a)( 6) (C)( ii )(I). Eten y i m ad e

-6

-th is fal se rep res en ta ti on by ad op ti ng th e erro n e ou s in fo rm at io n on th e Fo rm I-9

su bm it te d t o h is em

pl oyer. Accor di ng ly, he is in el ig ib le for ad jus tm en t o f st at us

. 3

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we d en y Eten y i’s p et it io n fo r rev ie w.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

On ap pe al

, Eten y i arg ue s th at DHS di d no t sh ow in te nt as he cl ai m s is req ui red 3 by 8 U.S.C. § 12 27 (a)( 3) (D). Bec au se Eten y i di d no t rai se t h e s e i s su es be fo re th e BIA, we la ck juri sd ic ti on to co ns id er t he m

. Se e Su lt an i v. Go nz al es , 45 5 F .3d 87 8,

88 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (“ Fai lu re to rai se an is su e be fo re th e ag en cy co ns ti tu te s a fai lu re

to ex ha us t ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s an d de pr iv es th is co ur t of juri sd ic ti on to he ar th e

m at te r.”).

-7

-