2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Third C ir c uit 6-8-2010 

# O sc ar Lop e z v

. Atty Ge n U SA P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-1719

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al works at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Third C irc uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s by an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or more inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " O s car L opez v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1178. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2010/1178NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 09- 1719

___________ OSCA R LO PEZ, Pet i t i oner

v. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent

____________________________________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 097- 433- 631) Im m i grat i on Judg e: H on orabl e E ug ene P ug l i ese

____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

May 5, 2010 Be fore : MCKEE, HARDIMAN and COWEN, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: June 8, 2010)

___________ OPI NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM O s carL opez pe t i t i ons forr evi ew of the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ’ ( “B I A ”) fi nal or derof r emoval . Forthe fol l ow i ng r eas ons , w e w i l l denyhi s pet i t i on. I. L opez i s a nat i ve and c i t i zen of G uat emal a. O n O ct ober3, 1998, L opez w as2

d e tain e d w h ile a ttem p tin g to e n ter th e U n ited S tate s a t S a n Y sid ro , C a lifo rn ia. A t h is i nterview w i th an i m m i grat i on i nspector the n ext day , L op ez w as quest i on ed as fo l l ow s:

Q . W hen did y ou enterthe U nit ed S t at es? A . Y e s t e r d a y Q . H ow did y ou at t em pt t o en t er the U nit ed S t at es? A . W al ki ng thr ough the l i ne Q . H ow di d y ou pr es enty our s el f fori ns pect i on? A . Li ke a l l myfr i e nd s , I s a i d U. S. Q . A r e y ou a U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen? A . N o. ( A . R . 158. ) A ft eradmi t t i ng thathe w as nota U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen, L opez c l ai m ed thathe w as i ns t ead a M exi can c i t i zen. B as ed on thi s i nform at i on, i m m i gr at i on author i t i es found th a t L o p e z h a d m a d e a f a ls e c la im to U n ite d S ta te s c itiz e n s h ip , s ee 8 U. S . C. § 1182( a) ( 6) ( C ) ( i i ) , and or der ed hi m i m m edi at el yr emoved t o M exi co. T he r emoval or der i ndi cat ed thatL opez w as notperm i t t ed t o r eturn t o the U ni t ed St at es foratl eas tfi ve ye a r s . D e s p i t e th i s i n s tru c t i o n , L o p e z s o o n r e - e n t e r e d th e c o u n try u n l a w f u l l y. I n 2003, L opez s ubm i t t ed an appl i cat i on t o adj us thi s s t atus on the gr ound thathe w as the bene fi ci aryof an a ppr oved I - 130 pet i t i on fi l ed byhi s father , w ho i s a l aw ful p e rm a n e n t r e s id e n t. See I N A § 245( i ) [8 U . S. C . § 1255( I ) ] . T he D epart m entof H o m elan d S ec u ri ty(D H S ) de n ied th e a p p li ca ti o n , fin d ing that h e w as in ad m issi b le fo r: (1) h av ing m ad e a fa lse claim to U n it ed S tat es c it izen sh ip; an d (2) re-e n teri n g the c o u n try i n vi ol at i on of hi s r emoval or der . D H S i nform ed Lopez thathe w as r equi r ed t o l eave the U n ited S tate s a n d th a t re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s w o u ld b e in stitu ted a g a in st h im if h e f a iled to d o s o . L o p e z d id n o t d e p a rt .3

A ccor di ngl y , i n M ar ch 2006, D H S se r ved Lopez w i th a N ot i ce t o A ppearchar gi ng hi m w i th r emovabi l i ty : ( 1) as an al i en pr es enti n the U ni t ed St at es w i thoutadmi s s i on or par ol e underI N A § 212( a) ( 6) ( A ) ( i ) [8 U . S. C . § 1182( a) ( 6) ( A ) ( i ) ] ; ( 2) forhavi ng m ade a f a l s e c l a i m o f

Un i t e d S t a t e s c i t i z e n s h i p u n d e rI NA § 2 1 2 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( C) ( i i ) [ 8 U. S . C. § 1182( a) ( 6) ( C ) ( i i ) ] ; and ( 3) as an al i en or der ed r emoved w ho r e- ent er ed w i thout admi s s i on underI N A § 212( a) ( 9) ( C ) ( i ) ( I I ) [8 U . S. C . § 1182( a) ( 9) ( C ) ( i ) ( I I ) ] . I n M ay 2007, L opez appear ed bef or e an I m m i gr at i on J udge ( I J ) and, thr ough couns el , admi t t ed the fir stcharge, bu tden i ed the second and thir d ch arges. L op ez al so renew ed h i s r equ est for adjustm ent of st atus. A r emoval hear i ng w as s chedul ed forFebruary5, 2008. B efor e the hea r i ng, on D ece m ber31, 2007, the governm entfi l ed a numberof document s w i th the i m m i gr at i on court , i ncl udi ng a copyof Lopez’ s O ct ober4, 1998 i nt ervi ew w i th the i m m i gr at i on i ns pect oratSan Y s i dr o. I n r es pons e, L opez f i l ed a mot i on fora cont i nuance , cl ai m i ng that , i n l i ghtof the “ne w ” evi dence agai ns thi m , he nee ded addi t i onal t i m e t o s eek a w ai verof i nadmi s s i bi l i ty . T he I J deni ed the mot i on and the hea r i ng t ook pl ace as s chedul ed on February5, 2008. A tthe hea r i ng, L opez de ni ed havi ng r epr es ent ed hi m s el f as a U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen w hen he a t t empt ed t o ent erthe countryi n O ct ober1998. L opez t es t i fi ed that , w hen he arr i ved atthe bor der , he chos e t o j oi n a l i ne of pe opl e w ho di d nothave t o pr es entany document s t o the author i t i es i n or dert o getthr ough. H e cl ai m ed thathe di d nots peak4

E ngl i s h and di d notunder s t and w hatthe i m m i gr at i on offi cers ai d t o hi m befor e he w as p u ll ed fro m the line. L o p ez claim ed that h e a lso f ail ed to u n d erstan d the in sp ec tor’s q u e stio n s th e f

o llo w in g d a y , an d d id n o t m e a n to sta te th a t h e h a d in ten tio n a lly m i s r epr es ent ed hi m s el f as a U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen. A ft erthe hea r i ng, the I J found thatL opez’ s t es t i m onyw as notcr edi bl e and thathe h a d f a l s e l yr e p r e s e n t e d h i ms e l f a s a Un i t e d S t a t e s c i t i z e n i n v i o l a t i o n o f I NA § 237( a) ( 3) ( D ) [8 U . S. C . § 1227( a) ( 3) ( D ) ] . T her efor e, the I J deni ed hi s appl i cat i on for a d ju s tm e n t o f

s ta tu s . See 8 U . S. C . § 1182( a) ( 6) ( C ) ( i i ) ( I ) ( barr i ng admi s s i on of “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 c i t i zen of the U ni t ed St at es foranypurpos e orbenef i tunderthi s A ct ”) . W i th r es pectt o the mot i on for a cont i nuance , the I J expl ai ned thatL opez ha d pl entyof t i m e t o pr epar e a de fens e t o the governm ent ’ s char ge thathe had made a f al s e cl ai m t o U ni t ed St at es ci t i zens hi p, as that ch arg e w as in it ial lylod g ed ag ains t him as e arlyas 1 9 9 8 . T h e IJ f u rth er f o u n d that there w er e no w ai ver s avai l abl e t o L opez f orthi s part i cul argr ound of i nadmi s s i bi l i ty . U pon rev iew , the B IA af

firm ed the IJ’s d ec isi o n . L o p ez n o w p eti ti o n s fo r rev iew o f th e B IA ’s o rde r. II. A . M ot i on fora C ont i nuance L opez f i r s tar gues thatthe I J abus ed hi s di s cr et i on, and vi ol at ed Lopez’ s due pr oces s r i ght s , w hen he de ni ed Lopez’ s m ot i on fora cont i nuance . A s not ed above , L opez5

arg u ed in h is m o ti o n that h e n ee d ed ad d it ion al t im e in o rde r t o fil e a n ap p li ca ti o n fo r a w a iv e r o f

in a d m iss ib ili tyu n d e r IN A § 2 1 2 . L o p e z c laim e d th a t h e h a d n o t re a lize d th a t it w oul d be nec es s aryt o s eek s uch r el i ef unt i l he r evi ew ed the document s thatthe governm enthad fi l ed tw o w eeks ear l i eri n s uppor tof i t s cas e. L opez a l s o not ed that “[t ] he ca us al s t at ementm ade by[hi m ] atthe t i m e of e ntrys houl d notbe cons i der ed a

‘ f a l s e c l a i m t o c i t i z e n s h i p ’ a n d th a ti s s u e , i f d i s p u t e d , wi l l r e q u i r e b r i e f i n g . ” ( AR 0 0 0 2 5 1 .) W e r evi ew the deni al of a mot i on fora cont i nuance foran abus e of di s cr et i on, and w ill r e v e rs e th e a g e n c y ’s d e c is io n o n ly if it is a rb itr a ry, irr a tio n a l, o r c o n tr a ry to la w . See Khan v. A t t ’

y G en . , 44 8 F . 3d 22 6, 23 3 (3d C i r. 20 06 ). U nd er the ap pli cable r egu l at i on s, a n I J h a s th e d i s c r e t i o n t o g r a n ta c o n t i n u a n c e i f th e r e i s “ g o o d c a u s e s h o wn . ” 8 C. F . R. § 1 00 3. 29 . W e exerci se pl enaryrevi ew ov er pr oced ural du e process cl ai m s. Si ngh v. G onz al es , 4 3 2 F . 3 d 5 3 3 , 5 4 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). U p o n re v iew o f

th e re c o rd , w e a g re e w ith th e B IA th a t th e IJ a c ted w ith in h is di s cr et i on i n deny i ng L opez a cont i nuance . A s the B I A expl ai ned, the N ot i ce t o A ppear iss u e d in 2 0 0 6

— a s w e ll as th e d e n ial o f h is f irst a p p lica tio n to a d

ju st h is s tatu s in 2 0 0 5

— c le a rl yin f

o rm e d L o p e z th a t h e w a s b e in g c h a rg e d w ith re m o v a b ility f o r, i nt er a lia , h a v in g m a d e a f

a lse c laim o f

U n ited S tate s c iti z e n sh ip u n d e r IN A § 2 1 2 (a )(6 )(C )(ii) [ 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 8 2 (a )(6 )(C )(ii)]. W e se e n o re a so n w h yL o p e z sh o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n a b le toI n s uppor tof hi s ar gum entthathe nee ded addi t i onal t i m e t o pr epar e forthe 1 m er i t s hear i ng, L opez c l ai m s thathe di d nothave a copyof hi s fi r s tappl i cat i on for adj us t m entof s t atus orthe exhi bi t s pert ai ni ng t o hi s 1998 expedi t ed r emoval pr ocee di ngs u n t i l th e g o v e rn me n ts u b mi t t e d th e m t o th e i mm i g r a t i o n c o u r to n De c e mb e r3 1 , 2 0 0 7 . He d o es n o t, h o w ev er, ex p lai n w h ythe o n e-m o n th p eriod b etw ee n the g o v ern m en t’ s su b m iss io n a n d h is re m o v a l h e a rin g w a s in su f f icie n t. 6 p re p a re h is d e f

e n se in a tim e lym a n n e r. F u rth e rm o re , g iv e n th a t, as th e IJ c o rre c tly 1 not ed, ther e w er e no w ai ver s avai l abl e t o L opez f orthi s part i cul argr ound of i nadmi s s i bi l i ty , w e fa i l t o s ee how del ay i ng the pr ocee di ngs w oul d have a ffe ct ed the out come of hi s cas e. W e al s o r ej ectL opez’ s due pr oces s ar gum ent , as w e have car eful l yr evi ew ed the r ecor d and conc l ude thathe w as pr ovi ded w i th a ful l and fa i rhear i ng, and, as di s cus s ed a b o v e , a re a s o n a b le o p p o rt u n ity to p re s e n t e v id e n c e . See Si ngh v. G onz al es , 432 F. 3d 5 3 3 , 5 4 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). B . A ppl i cat i on forA dj us t m entof St atus L o p e z n e x t ar g u e s th a t th e IJ a n d B IA e rre d in f in d in g th a t h e w a s in a d m iss ib le u n d e r § 1 1 8 2 (a )(6 )(C )(ii)(I) b e c a u se , h e c o n ten d s, th e re c o rd d id n o t su f f icie n tly d e m o n stra te th a t h e h a d f a lse lyc laim e d to b e a U n ited S tate s c iti z e n w h e n h e a ttem p ted to ent erthe countryi n O ct ober1998. A ccor di ng t o L opez, the onl yevi dence s ugges t i ng that he purpos eful l ym i s r epr es ent ed hi m s el f as a U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen i s hi s ambi guous s t at ementt o the i m m i gr at i on i ns pect orthathe had “ s ai d U . S. ” w hen as ked how he

“ p re se n t[ e d h im se lf

] f o r in sp e c tio n .” L o p e z n o w a rg u e s th a t th is s tate m e n t is su b jec t to7

v a ry in g in terp re tatio n s— “ [ i]t is ju st a s lik e lyth a t [ h e ] . . . m e a n t th a t h e h a d sa id ‘U .S .’ to th e b o rd e r c o n tr o l o f

f ic e r i n a s f

a r a s w h e re h e w a s g o in g .” (B r. 3 3

– 3 4 .) W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w a f i n a l o r d e ro f

r e mo v a l u n d e r8 U. S . C. § 1 25 2(a) (1) . W hen , as i n thi s case, the B IA subst anti al l yrel i es on the fi nd i ng s of t he IJ, w e re v ie w th e d e c is io n s o f b o th th e B IA a n d th e IJ . S e e X ie v . A sh c ro

ft , 359 F. 3d 239, 24 2 (3d C i r. 20 04 ). W e revi ew these findi ng s, i ncludi ng anycredi bil i tydeterm i nati on s, u n d e r a s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e s ta n d a rd . See Cao v. A t t ’ y G en . , 4 0 7 F . 3 d 1 4 6 , 1 5 2 (3d C ir . 2005) . A n adver s e cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ng m us tbe uphel d unl es s “anyr eas onabl e adj udi cat or w oul d be compel l ed t o concl ude t o the contr ary . ” B e ris h a j v. A sh c ro

ft , 378 F. 3d 314, 322 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( quot i ng 8 U . S. C . § 1252( b) ( 4) ( B ) ) . W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew over L opez’ s chal l enge t o the age ncy ’ s det erm i nat i on thathe w as s t atut oryi nel i gi bl e for a d ju s tm e n t o f

s ta tu s . See Pi nho v. G onz al es , 4 3 2 F . 3 d 1 9 3 , 2 0 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). U p o n rev iew , w e c o n clud e tha t sub stan ti al ev iden ce su p p o rt s the B IA ’s det erm i nat i on thatL opez made a f al s e cl ai m t o ci t i zens hi p. A l though L opez’ s acc ountof th e a lleg e d m isc o m m u n ica tio n is c e rta in lyp lau sib le, h e h a s n o t sh o w n th a t an yre a so n a b le adj udi cat orw oul d be compel l ed t o r ej ectthe I J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on. A ccor di ngl y , beca us e s ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s the I J ’ s det erm i nat i on thatL opez w as i nadmi s s i bl e forperm anentr es i dence , the I J and B I A corr ect l yconcl uded thathe w as therefore i neli gibl e for adjustm ent of st atus. W e h av e re v iew ed L o p ez ’s rem ainin g arg u m en ts an d co n clud e tha t th eyare8

wi th o u tme r i t . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we wi l l d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.