FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT SEPTEMBER 6, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N os . 05- 13996 & 05- 16993 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ B I A N o. A 79- 091- 705 O L D N I C K A D R I E N , P e titio n e r , v ersu s U .S . A T T O RN E Y G E N E R A L , R e s p o n d e n t.

________________________ P e t i t i ons f

orR e vi e w of

aD e c i s i on of

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 6, 2006) B efo re T JO F L A T , A N D E R S O N an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: I n th is c o n s o lid a te d ap p e a l, O ld n ic kA d r ie n , an a tiv e a n d c itiz e n o f H a iti,2

pet i t i on s thi s C ou rtfor r evi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ’ s” ) a f f i rma t i o n o f

( 1 ) th e i mmi g r a t i o n j u d g e ’ s ( “ I J ’ s ” ) d e n i a l o f h i s c l a i m f

o ra s y l u m, w i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l unde rthe I m m i gr a t i on a nd N a t i ona l i tyA c t( “ I N A ” ) , a nd r e lie f u n d e rth e U n ite d N a tio n s C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o rtu r e a n d O th e rC ru e l, In h u m an an d D eg ra d in g T re atm en t o r P u n ish m en t (“C A T ”) , an d (2 ) th e B IA ’s deni al of hi s m ot i on t o reopen b as ed hi s app l i ca t i on for a dj ustm entof st atus fi l ed a f t e rhe m a rr i e d aU ni t e d S t a t e s c i t i z e n. I n hi s f i r s tpe t i t i on, A dr i e n a r gue s tha tthe I Ja nd the B I A e rr e d by f i ndi ng hi s t e s t i m ony notc r e di bl e . I n hi s s e c ond pe t i t i on, A d r ie n a r g u e s th a t th e B I A e rr e d in d e n y in g h is m o tio n to r e o p e n b e c au s e h is r e c e ntm a rr i a ge t o aU ni t e d S t a t e s c i t i z e n pe rm i t s hi m t o appl yf ora dj us tm e ntof s ta tu s w h ile in r e m o v a l p r o c e e d in g s . I. I n hi s f i r s tpe t i t i on, A dr i e n a r gue s tha tthe I J ’ s a dve r s e c r e di bi l i tyf i ndi ng w a s n o t s u p p o rte d b y s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e a n d h is te s tim o n ya s aw h o le de m ons tr a t e d tha the w a s s ubj e c tt o pe r s e c ut i on a nd thr e a t s t o hi s l i f e , a nd the in c id e n ts w e r e d ir e c tlyr e la te d to h is a rr e s t o f aL a v a la s s e n a to r ’s c o u s in . W e r e vi e w the de c i s i on of the B I A , e xc e ptt o the e xt e nttha ti ta dopt s the I J ’ s . N r e kav. U . S . A tt ’ y . G e n. , 408 F . 3d 1361, 1368 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( c i t a t i on o mi tt e d ) . Be c au s e th e BI A i n th i s c a s e a d o p t e d th e I J ’ s d e c i s i o n , a n d ma d e s o me3

addi t i on al ob se rvat i on s, w e r evi ew bo th. Id. T he fa ctual det erm i nat i on thatan a l i e n i s note nt i t l e d t o a s y l um i s r e vi e w e d unde rthe s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e t e s t , a nd m us tbe uphe l d i f

i ti s s upport e d by“ r e a s onabl e , s ubs t a nt i a l , a nd pr oba t i ve e vi de nc e on the r e c or d c ons i de r e d a s aw hol e . ” I d ( i nt e rna l quot a t i ons a nd c i t a t i on o m itte d ) .

“ C re di bi l i ty det erm i nat i on s l i kew i se ar e r evi ew ed un der the subst ant i al evi dence t es t . ” D -M uh um ed v. U . S . A tt ’ y. G en. , 38 8 F . 3d 81 4, 81 8 (11 th C i r. 20 04 ) ( ci t at i on om i tt ed). W e m ayno tsubst i tut e our j ud gm entfor thatof the IJ w i th resp ectt o cred i b i l i ty fi n d i n g s. Id . (ci t at i o n o m i tt ed ). “ O n ce an ad v erse cr ed ib il ity f

in d in g is m ad e, th e b u rd en is o n th e ap p li ca n t ali en to sh o w th at th e I J’s c r e di bi l i ty de c i s i on w a s nots upport e d by‘ s pe c i f i c , c oge ntr e a s ons ’ orw a s not ba s e d on s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e . ” F or gue v. U . S . A tt ’ y . G e n. , 401 F . 3d 1282, 1287 (11th C i r. 20 05 ) ( ci t at i on om i tt ed). “ A cr edi bi l i ty det erm i nat i on , l i ke any f ac t fi nd i ng , m ayno tbe ov erturned u nl es s the re cord com pel s i t . ” I d. (i nt ernal q u o tati o n s a n d citati o n s o m itted ). If th e o n ly ev id en ce p re se n ted is th e ap p li ca n t’ s t e s t i m ony , a n a dve r s e c r e di bi l i ty f i ndi ng a l one i s s uf

f i c i e ntt o s upportthe de ni a l of a n a s y l um appl i c a t i on. I d. H ow e ve r , a n a dve r s e c r e di bi l i tyf i ndi ng doe s not a lle v ia te th e I J ’s d u tyto c o n s id e ro th e re v id e n c e p r o d u c e d b yth e ap p lic a n t. I d . F or a c re di bi l i ty f

i nd i ng t o b e di sposi t i ve of the appeal , the IJm ustm ake “ cl ean de t e rm i na t i ons of

c r e di bi l i ty . ” Y a ng v. U . S . A tt ’ y . G e n. , 418 F . 3d 1198, 12014

(11th C i r. 20 05 ) ( i nt ernal qu ot at i on s and ci t at i on om i tt ed). A lth o u g h m in o rin c o n s is te n c ie s w ill n o t s u p p o rt a n a d v e r s e c r e d ib ility f in d in g , in c o n s is te n c ie s th a t g o “to th e h e a rt o f [ th e ] a s y lu m c la im ” a r e s u f f ic ie n t to s u p p o rt s u c h af

in d in g . S e e e .g ., C h e b c h o u b v . I .N .S ., 2 5 7 F .3 d 1 0 3 8 , 1 0 4 3 ( 9 th C i r. 20 01 ) ( i nt ernal qu ot at i on s and ci t at i on om i tt ed); se e a l so N re ka, 40 8 F . 3d at 13 69 (hol di ng thatIJ ’ s c on ce rns abo utthe cr edi bi l i ty of the appl i canton “ key e l e m e nt s of

the c l a i m ” a nd the appl i c a nt ’ s f a i l ur e t o r e butthe s e w i th s uf f i c i e nt c orr obor a t i ng e vi de nc e a nd e xpl a na t i on s upport e d f i ndi ng tha tappl i c a ntdi d not q u a lif y f o ra s y lu m ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . A n a l i e n w ho a rr i ve s i n ori s pr e s e nti n the U ni t e d S t a t e s m a yappl yf or a s y l um . S e e I N A § 208( a ) ( 1) , 8 U . S . C . §1158( a ) ( 1) . T he S e c r e t a ryof the D e pa rtm e ntof

H om e l a nd S e c ur i ty( “ D H S ” ) orthe A tt orne yG e ne r a l ha s di s c r e t i on t o g r a n ta s y l u m i f

th e a l i e n m e e t s th e I NA ’ s d e f i n i t i o n o f a“ r e f u g e e . ” S e e I NA § 2 0 8 ( b ) ( 1 ) , 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 ( b ) ( 1 ) . A “r e f u g e e ” is a ny pe r s on w ho i s out s i de a nyc ountryof s uc h pe r s on’ s na t i ona l i ty. . . , a nd w h o is u n ab le o ru n w illin g to r e tu rn to , a n d is u n ab le o ru n w illin g to a v a il hi m se l f or her se l f of the prot ec t i on of, thatcoun trybecause of p e r s e c u t i on or a w e l l - f

ou n d e d f

e ar of p e r s e c u t i on on ac c ou n t of r a c e , r e l i gi on, nat i on al i ty, m em bers hi p i n a part i cul arsoci al grou p, or p ol i t i c alop i n i on . . . I N A §101( a ) ( 42) ( A ) , 8 U . S . C . §1101( a ) ( 42) ( A ) ( e m pha s i s a dde d) . T he a s y l um ap p l i c a n tc a rr i e s th e b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g s t a tu t o ry“ r e f

u g e e ” s t a tu s . 8 C. F. R. § 2 0 8 . 1 3 (a); N ajj ar v . A sh cro ft , 2 5 7 F . 3 d 1 2 6 2 , 1 2 8 4 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 1 ). T o est ab l i sh5

a s y l um e l i gi bi l i ty , the a l i e n m us t , w i th s pe c i f i c a nd c r e di bl e e vi de nc e , e s t abl i s h ( 1) pastpers ec ut i on on ac coun tof a s t atut ori l y l i st ed fa ct or, or (2) a“ w el l -f ou nd ed f e a r ” th a tth e s t a tu t o r i l y l i s t e d f a c t o rw i l l c au s e s u c h f

u tu r e p e r s e c u t i o n . 8 C. F. R. § 208. 13( b) ; N a

jj a r , 257 F . 3d a t1287. A n a lie n s e e k in g w ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l u n d e rth e I N A m u s t s h o w th a t h is lif e o rf r e e d o m w o u ld “m o r e lik e lyth a n n o t” b e th r e a te n e d u p o n r e tu rn to h is c o u n try b e c au s e o f

, a mo n g o th e rth i n g s , h i s p o l i t i c a l o p i n i o n . Sa n c h e z v . U . S. A tt ’ y . G e n. , 392 F . 3d 434, 437 ( 11th C i r . 2004) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i ons a nd c i t a t i on om i tt e d) ; s e e a l s o I N A §241( b) ( 3) , 8 U . S . C . § 1231( b) ( 3) . A n a l i e n be a r s the bur de n of

de m ons tr a t i ng tha t“ he m or e - l i ke l y - tha n- notw oul d be pe r s e c ut e d or t ortur e d upon hi s r e turn t o the c ountryi n que s t i on. ” S a nc he z , 392 F . 3d a t437 ( i nt e rna l quot a t i ons a nd c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . T hi s s t a nda r d i s m or e s tr i nge nttha n the

“ w e l l - f ounde d f e a r ” s t a nda r d f

ora s y l um ; thus , i f

a n appl i c a nti s unabl e t o m e e tthe

“ w e l l - f ounde d f e a r ” s t a nda r d f

ora s y l um , he ge ne r a l l yi s unabl e t o qua l i f yf or w i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l . S e e e . g. , N a

jj a r , 257 F . 3d a t1292- 93. T o obt a i n w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l unde rthe C A T , the bur de n i s on the appl i c a ntt o e s t abl i s h tha ti ti s “ m or e - l i ke l y - tha n- not ” he w i l l be t ortur e d i n the c o u n try o f

r e m o v a l. 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 6 ( c ) ( 2 ) . T ortur e i s de f

i ne d a s a nya c tbyw hi c h s e ve r e pa i n or s u f f e r in g , w h e th e rp h y s ic a l o rm e n ta l, is in te n tio n a lly i nf l i c t e d on ape r s on f

ors uc h purpos e s a s obt a i ni ng f r om6 hi m orhe rorathi r d pe r s on i nf orm a t i on orac onf

e s s i on, puni s hi ng hi m orhe rf

ora n a c the ors he orathi r d pe r s on ha s c om m i tt e d ori s s us pe c t e d of ha vi ng c om m i tt e d, or i nt i m i da t i ng orc oe r c i ng hi m orhe rorathi r d pe r s on, or for any re as on base d o n d i sc ri m i nat i on of any ki nd , w hen s uc h pa i n ors uf

f e r i ng i s i nf

l i c t e d byora tthe i ns t i ga t i on of or w i th the consentor ac qu i es ce nce of a publ i c off i ci al o ro th e rp e r s o n a c tin g in a n o f f ic ia l c ap a c ity . 8 C . F . R . §2 08 . 18 (a )( 1). T o con st i tut e t orture, an ac t“ m ustbe spec i fi ca l l y i nt ended to in f lic t s e v e r e p h y s ic a l o rm e n ta l p a in o rs u f f e r in g [ .]” 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 8 ( a ) ( 5 ) . G en eral l y, w h en an ap p l i can tfai l s t o est ab l i sh el i g i b i l i ty fo r asyl u m , h e l i k ew i se f a i l s t o e s t abl i s h e l i gi bi l i ty f orC A T r e l i e f

. N r e ka , 408 F . 3d a t1369 ( c i t a t i on o m itte d ) . T he I J ’ s f

i ndi ng tha tA dr i e n’ s t e s t i m ony l a c ke d c r e di bi l i tyw a s s upport e d by s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e . M os ti m port a nt , the I Jc orr e c t l ynot e d tha tA dr i e n ga ve m ul t i pl e a c c ount s of

the be a t i ng tha tf

orm e d the ba s i s of

hi s a s y l um appl i c a t i on, a nd e vi de nc e c ontr a di c t e d A dr i e n’ s c l a i m tha tthe be a t i ng w a s m ot i va t e d bythe a tta c k e r s ’ d e s ir e to k e e p n e g a tiv e in f o rm a tio n f

r o m a f f e c tin g u p c o m in g e le c tio n s . T he s e i nc ons i s t e nc i e s w e r e m a t e r i a l t o A dr i e n’ s a s y l um c l a i m a nd he f a i l e d t o gi ve s uf f i c i e nte xpl a na t i ons f

orthe i nc ons i s t e nc i e s . F urthe rm or e , A dr i e n f a i l e d t o s how thatany m i stre atm entw as base d u po n h i s pol i t i ca l op i ni on . B ec ause A dri en has fai l ed t o est ab l i sh a cl ai m o f asyl u m o n th e m eri t s, h e al so fai l s t o est ab l i sh e lig ib ilityf

o rw ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l u n d e rth e I N A o rC A T r e lie f .7

A d r ie n a r g u e s th a t th e n e w m e d ic a l e v id e n c e s u b m itte d to th e B I A in h is m ot i on t o r e ope n unde rm i ne s the I J ’ s c r e di bi l i tyf i ndi ng, a nd s e rve s t o e xpl a i n a ny in c o n s is te n c ie s a n d s h o rtc o m in g s in h is te s tim o n y . I n d e n y in g th e m o tio n to r e o p e n , th e B I A h e ld : T h e n e w d ia g n o s is d e s c r ib e s th e r e s p o n d e n t a s h a v in g a n in ab ilityto r e c a l l c e rt a i n e ve nt s ore pi s ode s i n hi s l i f e W e not e tha tthe r e s ponde nt has aun i vers i ty degre e i n E cono m i cs and w as a pol i ce offi ce r, pr e s um abl y a de pta tr e c or di ng f a c t s a nd s e que nc e s of

e ve nt s , f or a l m os tf oury e a r s a nd the r e i s no e vi de nc e , othe rtha n hi s a s s e rt i on, tha thi s m e m ory pr obl e m s e xi s t e d a tthe t i m e of hi s he a r i ng be f

or e the Im m i grat i on Judg e i n 2 00 3 T here i s a l so no thi ng i n the di agno si s that in d ic a te s w h e n h e d o e s r e m e m b e re v e n ts , h e r e c a lls s p e c if ic b u t f au lty ori nc orr e c tf

a c t s . F ori ns t a nc e , hi s di a gnos i s s t a t e s tha t“ the r e i s no e vi de nc e of

c onf abul a t i on” orat e nde nc yt o f i l l i n gaps i n one * s m em ory w i th fabri ca t i on s thaton e bel i eves t o b e true f ac t s ( E xh . I a t 4) . T he r e f

or e , w hi l e hi s di a gnos i s m a yhe l p e xpl a i n al a c k of de t a i l or t ot a l f a i l ur e t o r e c a l l e ve nt s , i tw oul d note xpl a i n w hol l yi nc ons i s t e nt a nd va ry i ng ve r s i ons of e ve nt s . F ore xa m pl e , the r e s ponde nt p r e v io u s lyc la im e d th a t h e w a s a tta c k e d in N o v e m b e r2 0 0 0 , b yp e o p le w ho w er e ang rybecause they bel i eved he had b ee n col l ec t i ng m on ey f r om the I nt e rna t i ona l R e publ i c I ns t i tut i on i n a n e f f ortt o s upportthe po l i ce un i on , bu the l at ert es t i fi ed thathe w as att ac ked b y am an na m e d “ B l a c k” a nd s om e othe rthugs be c aus e he ha d a rr e s t e d the cousi n o f apo l i t i ca l l ea der and the po l i t i ca l l ea der w ant ed t o i nsure the r e s ponde ntdi d nota tt e m ptt o e m ba rr a s s the l e a de rpr i ort o the upc om i ng pol i t i c a l e l e c t i on ( E xhs . 2, 6; T r . 30- 31) . M or e ove r , the re spon dentfi rs tst at ed thathe vo l un t ar i l y r es i gn ed fr om the H ai t i an po l i ce forc e w hen i tw as l at erre veal ed thathe w as the subj ec tof an adm i ni stra t i ve i nv es t i gat i on and h i s w eapo n and badg e w er e c o n f is c a te d ( E x h . 6 ) . E v e n a s s u m in g h is d ia g n o s is c o u ld e x p la in th is l a c k of c r e di bi l i ty , the r e s ponde ntt ol d hi s doc t ortha the ha d al ongs ta n d in g m e m o ry p r o b le m , w h ic h h e s ta te d b e g a n to w o r s e n in approx i m at el y M ay20 05 (E xh . 1 at1). If the re spon dentw er e * aw ar e o f lo n g - s ta n d in g m e m o ry p r o b le m s , h e h a s n o t e x p la in e d w h yth is i nform at i on w ou l d h ave been unavai l abl e or c ou l d n othave been8

pr e s e nt e d t o the I m m i gr a t i on J udge a thi s i ndi vi dua l he a r i ng. A s s uc h, the r e s ponde nt * s m o tio n f a ils to p r e s e n t n e w o rp r e v io u s lyu n a v a ilab le e v id e n c e th a t w o u ld w a rr a n t r e o p e n in g a n d h is m o tio n to r e o p e n is d e n ie d . B IA deci si on , N ov em ber 18, 20 05 (c i t at i on om i tt ed). O ur re vi ew of the re cord d o es n o tp ersu ad e u s th atth e reco rd i n cl u d i n g th e n ew ev i d en ce co m p el s a d if f e r e n t d e te rm in a tio n w ith r e s p e c t to th e c r e d ib ilityis s u e . II. A d ri en al so arg u es th ath e sh o u l d h av e b een al l o w ed t o ad j u sth i s st atu s, de s pi t e the f

a c ttha the w a s a n a l i e n i n r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs , be c aus e the r e gul a t i on pr e ve nt i ng hi m f

r om doi ng s o, 8 C . F . R . §1245. 1( c ) ( 8) , c ontr a di c t s the Co n g r e s s i o n a l i n t e n tt o a l l o w h i m t o d o s o , a s ma n i f e s t e d i n I N A § 2 4 5 ( a ) , 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 5 5 ( a ) . “T h is C o u rt r e v ie w s th e B I A ’s d e n ia l o f [ ap e titio n e r ’s ] m o tio n to r e o p e n h is d ep o rtatio n o rd erfo r ab u se o f d iscr etio n . In th is p ar ti cu lar a re a, th e B IA ’s d is c r e tio n is q u ite b r o a d .” G b a y av . U .S . A tt’y . G e n ., 3 4 2 F .3 d 1 2 1 9 , 1 2 2 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . P u r s u a n t to r e g u la tio n , “[ t]h e d e c is io n to g r a n t o rd e n yam o tio n to re op en or re consi der i s w i thi n the di sc re t i on of the B oard, [and ] . . . [t ] he B oard has d is c r e tio n to d e n y am o tio n to r e o p e n e v e n if th e p a rtym o v in g h a s m a d e o u t a p r im af a c ie c a s e f

o rr e lie f .” 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( a ) . W e h a v e h e ld :For this reason, a

nd also bec ause our

decision ca

n and does not re st entirely on 1 theoth er s epa

rateand independent ground –

which it se lf

is v alid – w ene e d not, and

dono t, addre ss the eff

ect on Adrien’s eligibility for adjustment of status becauseof the fact that he wa s 9 A tam i ni m um , the r e a r e a tl e a s tthr e e i nde pe nde ntgr ounds upon w hi c h the B oa r d m a y de nyam ot i on t o r e ope n: 1) f a i l ur e t o e s t abl i s h a pri m a f ac i e c as e; 2) fa i l ure t o i ntrodu ce evi dence thatw as m at er i al a nd pr e vi ous l y una va i l abl e ; a nd 3) ade t e rm i na t i on tha tde s pi t e the a l i e n’ s s t a tut ory e l i gi bi l i ty f orr e l i e f , he ors he i s note nt i t l e d t o a f a vor abl e e xe r c i s e of

di s c r e t i on. N ajj ar , 25 7 F . 3d at13 02 (c i t at i on s om i tt ed). I n c ons i de r i ng the pa rtof A dr i e n’ s m ot i on ba s e d upon hi s appl i c a t i on f or adj ustm entof st atus, the B IA deni ed the m ot i on on tw o g roun ds: (1) he w as s t a tu t o r i l y b a rr e d f

r o m a d j u s t i n g h i s i n a d m i s s i b l e s t a tu s u n d e rI NA §2 12 (a )( 6)(C )( i i ), 8 U . S . C . §1 18 2(a) (6)( C )( i i ) bec ause he had fal se l y r epre se nt ed th a t h e w a s aU n ite d S ta te s c itiz e n ; a n d ( 2 ) h e w a s u n ab le to e s tab lis h p r im af a c ie e lig ib ilityf

o ra d ju s tm e n t o f

s ta tu s b e c au s e , a s a n a lie n in r e m o v a l p r o c e e d in g s , 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 4 5 .1 ( c ) ( 8 ) b a rr e d h im f r o m ap p ly in g f

o ra d ju s tm e n t o f

s ta tu s . I n hi s br i e f

on appe a l , A dr i e n c ha l l e nge s onl ythe s e c ond of the tw o gr ounds re l i ed up on by the B IA i n d enyi ng the m ot i on t o reopen. B ec ause A dri en has fa i l ed t o chal l enge the fi rs tgrou nd – a se para t e and i nd ependentgrou nd re l i ed u p o n b y th e B I A –h e h a s ab a n d o n e d a n ys u c h c h a lle n g e to th a t g r o u n d . A cc ordi ng l y, the B IA ’ s deni al of A dri en’ s m ot i on t o reopen i s due t o b e a ff i rm ed on tha tunc ha l l e nge d gr ound. 1an alien in removal proc eeding s. But seeScheerer v. Attorney General, 445 F .3d 311 (11 Cir. th 2006). 10 A l t ernat i vel y, w e r ea di l y c on cl ud e thatthe un chal l enged g roun d u po n w hi ch th e B I A r e lie d w a s in d e e d av a lidr e a s o n f o rth e B I A to d e n yA d r ie n ’s m o tio n to r e o p e n . A d r ie n w a s s ta tu to r ilyb a rr e d f r o m a d ju s tm e n t o f

s ta tu s b e c au s e h e f

a ls e ly r e p r e s e n t e d h i ms e l f

a s aU n i t e d St a t e s c i t i z e n . I N A § 2 1 2 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( C) ( i i ) , 8 U . S. C. § 1 1 8 2 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( C ) ( ii) p r o v id e s : (I ) I n g ener al A ny a l i e n w ho f

a l s e l yr e pr e s e nt s , orha s f a l s e l yr e pr e s e nt e d, hi m s e l f orhe r s e l f

t o be ac i t i z e n of

the U ni t e d S t a t e s f

ora ny purpos e orbe ne f

i tunde rthi s c hapt e r. . . ora nyothe rF e de r a l or S t at e l aw i s i nadm i ss i bl e. ( I I ) E xc e pt i on I n th e c a s e o f

a n a lie n m a k in g ar e p r e s e n ta tio n d e s c r ib e d in su b cl au se (I), i f each n atu ral p aren to f th e al i en (o r, i n th e case of an adop t ed al i en, ea ch adop t i ve parentof the al i en) i s or w as a c i t i ze n (w hether by bi rth o r natural i za t i on ), the al i en pe rm a ne nt l y r e s i de d i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s pr i ort o a tt a i ni ng the a ge of 16, a nd the a l i e n r e a s onabl ybe l i e ve d a tthe t i m e of m a ki ng s uc h r e pr e s e nt a t i on tha the ors he w a s ac i t i z e n, the a l i e n s ha l l notbe c ons i de r e d t o be i na dm i s s i bl e unde ra ny pr ovi s i on of

thi s s ubs e c t i on ba s e d on s uc h r e pr e s e nt a t i on. I N A § 2 1 2 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( C ) ( ii) , 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 8 2 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( C ) ( ii) . H er e, the B IA di d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on w hen i tfoun d thatA dri en w as s ta tu to r ilyb a rr e d f

r o m a d ju s tm e n t o f

s ta tu s b e c au s e n o w a iv e rto h isAdrien’ s reque st for oral argument is denied. 2 11 i n a d m i s s i b i l i ty e x i s t e d . Ad r i e n a d m i tt e d r e m o v e ab i l i typ u r s u a n tt o I NA § 2 1 2 (a)(6 )(C )(i i ), 8 U . S . C . § 1 1 8 2 (a)(6 )(C )(i i ) fo r fal sel y rep resen t i n g h i m sel f as a U ni t ed S t at es ci t i ze n. U nl i ke al i ens dee m ed i nadm i ss i bl e und ersubsec t i on s ( a) (4), (5), (6)( C )( i ), and (7)(A ), no w ai ver e xi st s f or al i ens dee m ed i nadm i ss i bl e und er I N A §212( a ) ( 6) ( C ) ( i i ) , 8 U . S . C . § 1182( a ) ( 6) ( C ) ( i i ) . S e e I N A §§209( c ) a nd 2 1 2 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( C ) ( iii) a n d ( i) , 8 U .S .C . § § 1 1 5 9 ( c ) a n d 1 1 8 2 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( C ) ( iii) a n d ( i) . A c c o r d in g ly , in o r d e rto b e e x c e p te d f r o m in a d m is s ib ility , h e w o u ld h a v e h a d to p r o v e th a t: ( 1 ) e a c h o f

h is p a r e n ts w a s aU n ite d S ta te s c itiz e n ; ( 2 ) h e p e rm a n e n tly r e s id e d in th e U n ite d S ta te s p r io rto a tta in in g th e a g e o f 1 6 ; a n d ( 3 ) h e r e a s o n ab ly bel i eved atthe t i m e of m aki ng hi s f al se re pres ent at i on thathe w as a U ni t ed S t at es c itiz e n . S e e I N A § 2 1 2 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( C ) ( ii) ( I I ) , 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 8 2 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( C ) ( ii) ( I I ) . T h is e xc e pt i on unde rs ubs e c t i on ( a ) ( 6) ( C ) ( i i ) ( I I ) w a s notappl i c abl e t o A dr i e n, a nd he w a s s ta tu to r ilyb a rr e d f

r o m a d ju s tin g h is s ta tu s . P E T I T I ON S DE NI E D. 2