FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T FEB 25, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 12 88 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 96 -7 41 -1 12
FRITZ J AEN-CHAVEZ, Pet it io ne r, ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, Res po nd en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of aDeci si on of t he Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Feb ru ary 25 , 20 11 ) Befo re BARKETT, HULL andMARCUS , Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Fri tz Jae n- Ch av ez (“ Ja en -Ch av ez”) see ks rev ie w of the Bo ardof

Im m ig rat io n Ap pe al s’s (“ BIA”) affi rm in g the Im mig rat io n J ud ge ’s (“ IJ ”) pr et erm is si on of h is ap pl ic at io n fo r a wai ve r of in adm is si bi li ty andanad jus tm en t of st atus . After r ev ie w, we di sm is s i n p artan d d en y inpa rt the pe ti ti on . I. BACKG ROUND A. Fal se Cla im of U.S. Citi zens hi p On M ay 17 , 20 02 , Jae n- Ch av ez, a ci ti zenof P eru , ent eredth e Uni te d S ta te s with aut ho riz at io n t o re m ai n u nt il Nov em be r 17 , 20 02 . After h is vi saex pi red , Ja en -Ch av ez s tay edinth e Uni te d S ta te s. InApri l 2 00 3, J aen -Ch av ez ap pl ie d fo r a job at M ou nt ai n F res h Yo un g Ch ic ke n i n No rth Caro li na . On h is em pl oym en t ap pl ic at io n, J aen -Ch av ez l is te d a
so ci al sec ur ity

nu m be r. Jae n- Ch av ez co m

pl et edan d s ig ne d a n Em

pl oym en t Eli gi bi li ty V eri fic at io n F orm I-9 . On th e Fo rm

I-9 , Jae n- Ch av ez ch eck edth e b ox in di cat in g tha t h e at te st edun de r pe na lty of p erjury

th athe was “ [a] cit iz enor na ti on al of t he Uni te d S ta te s.” As on e o f hi s two fo rm s o f id en ti fic at io n, J aen Ch av ez s ub m it te d aU.S. so ci al sec ur ity cardwith the nu m

be r li st edon hi s em pl oym en t ap pl ic at io n. InJu ne 20 05 , Jae n- Ch av ez m arri edMel is saJo ne s, a U.S. ci ti zen . On Feb ru ary 5, 2 00 6, J aen -Ch av ez fi le d a n app li cat io n t o a dju sthi s i m m ig rat io n 2st atus , pu rs ua ntto th e Immig rat io n a ndNati on al ity Act (“ INA”) § 24 5, 8 U.S.C. § 1 25 5, b as edon hi s re cen t m arri ag e. Ja en -Ch av ez’s wif e fi le d a n I- 13 0 v is a pe ti ti on on hi s b eh al f, whi chwas app ro ve d o n J anuary 8, 2 00 7. OnJan ua ry

24 , 20 07 , th e Dep art m en t o f Hom el an d S ecurit y (“ DHS”) d en ie d J aen -Ch av ez’s ap pl ic at io n fo r ad

jus tm en t o f st atus be cau se he ha d fa ls el y rep res en te d h im se lf t o be a U.S. cit iz eninord er t o g ai n e m pl oym en t an d thu s was in adm is si bl e und er INA § 2 12 (a)( 6) (C)( ii ), 8 U.S.C. § 11 82 (a)( 6) (C)( ii ). B. Rem ov al Proc eedi ng s The same day , th e DHS se rv edJae n- Ch av ez wi th a Not ic e to App ear, ch arg in g h im

with re m ov ab il ity

for : (1 ) ha vi ng rem ai ne d i n the Uni te d S ta te s fo r a lo ng er t im e th anpe rm it te d, p ur su an t t o INA § 23 7( a)(1 )(B) , 8 U.S.C. § 1 22 7( a)(1 )(B) ; (2 ) fai li ng to co m pl y with the co nd it io ns of t he no n- immig ran t st atus un de r whi chhe was a dm it te d, p ur su an t t o INA § 23 7( a)(1 )(C) (i) , 8 U.S.C. § 1 22 7( a)(1 )(C) (i) ; an d (3 ) be in g a n a li enwho fal se ly repre se nt edhi m se lf a s a U.S. cit iz enfora pu rp os e o r be ne fitun de r fed eral or s ta te law, p ur su an t t o INA § 2 37 (a)( 3) (D), 8 U.S.C. § 12 27 (a)( 3) (D). Ja en -Ch av ez co nc ed edrem ov ab il ity , bu t d en ie d h e h adfal se ly clai m edto be a U.S. cit iz en . Jae n- Ch av ez n ot edth athe was re qu es ti ng anad jus tm en t o f st atus an d awaiv er o f in adm is si bi li ty pur su an t t o INA § 21 2( i), 8 U.S.C. § 1 18 2( i). 3At h is rem ov al he ari ng , Jae n- Ch av ez ad m it te d tha t the so ci al sec ur ity

nu m be r he pro vi de d o n h is em pl oym en t ap pl ic at io n was fal se , th athe si gn edth e em pl oym en t ap pl ic at io n, an d tha t h e wro te hi s n am e b es id e a s ta te m en t ce rti fy in g th atall of t he res po ns es pro vi de d o n the ap pl ic at io n wer e co rrec t an d tru th fu l. Ja en -Ch av ez ex pl ai ne d tha t h e o bt ai ne d the fal se so ci al sec ur ity cardfro m so m eo ne he m etwhi le wait in g i n l in e fo r work. Ja en -Ch av ez fu rth er ad m it te d tha t h e ch eck edth e b ox on th e Fo rm I-9 in di cat in g h e was a “ ci ti zenor n at io na l o f th e Uni te d S ta te s.” J aen -Ch av ez ex pl ai ne d tha t h e d idno t kno w th e d iff eren ce b etweena “na ti on al ” an d a“ ci ti zen ,”
an d tha t h e th ou gh t tha t “ na ti on al ” m ean t “ [s ]om eo ne th atis he re.” J aen -Ch av ez furth er s tate d tha t h e d idno t u nd ers tandwhat“un de r pe na lty of p erjury ” m ean t
an d tha t h e si gn edth e Fo rm I-9 witho utfir stread in g i t. The IJ p ret erm it te d J aen -Ch av ez’s ap pl ic at io n fo r ad jus tm en t o f st atus an d waiv er o f in admis si bi li ty, fin di ng Jae n- Ch av ez re m ov ab le fro m th e Uni te d S ta te s pu rs ua ntto INA § 2 37 (a)( 1) (B), (a )(1 )(C) (i) , and(a)(3 )(D). The IJ f ou ndth at Ja en -Ch av ez p ro vi de d wh athe kn ew to be a fal se so ci al sec ur ity cardin
co nju nc ti on with the Fo rm I-9 . The IJfou nd“ so m ewh atfeeb le ” Ja en -Ch av ez’s
ex pl an at io n fo r m ark in g “ ci ti zenor n at io na l” onth e Fo rm I-9 gi ve n tha t h e kne w th e so ci al sec ur ity

cardwas fa ls e an d h e h adon e y ear o f co ll eg e educ at io n. 4Acco rd in gl y , th e IJfou ndth atJae n- Ch av ez “ kn ew wha t h e was do in g” when he

ch eck edth e “ ci ti zenor n at io na l” bo x o n the Fo rm I-9
. The IJ c on cl ud edth at : (1 ) Ja en -Ch av ez’s fal se cla im to cit iz en sh ip ren de red hi m in admis si bl e und er INA § 21 2( a)(6 )(C) (ii ), 8 U.S.C. § 11 82 (a)( 6) (C)( ii ); a nd (2 ) m ak in g afal se cla im

of c it iz en sh ip was n otwaiv ab le un de r INA § 2 12 (i) , 8 U.S.C. § 1 18 2( i). Al th ou gh Jae n- Ch av ez h adno t s ub m it te d a n app li cat io n fo r vo lu nt ary de pa rtu re, the IJ c on cl ud edth athe wou ldde ny vo lu nt ary de pa rtu re be cau se Jae n- Ch av ez u se d fa ls e id en ti fic at io n d oc um en ts an d d idno t p ro vi de a cu rren t v al iddo cu m en t. C. Appea l to the BI A The BIA d is m is se d J aen -Ch av ez’s ap pe al , con cl ud in g, i nt er al ia , th at : (1 ) Ja en -Ch av ez was bo th rem ov ab le an d i na dm is si bl e fo r ha vi ng m ad e a fal se cla im of cit iz en sh ip foran y

pu rp os e o r be ne fitun de r th e INA; (2 ) Ja en -Ch av ez kn owi ng ly sub m it te d afal se so ci al sec ur ity cardalo ng with h is Fo rm I-9 ; (3 ) be cau se Jae n- Ch av ez d idno t kno w th e m ean in g o f th e wor d “ na ti on al ,” “ he co ul d
no t h av e in te nd edto rep res en t h im se lf a s a n at io na l” onth e Fo rm I-9 ; (4 ) fi ll in g ou t the Fo rm

I-9 to ob ta inpri va te em

pl oym en t “ is to ob ta ina be ne fitun de r th e Act” ; (5 ) “ [t]he re i s n o a va il ab le waiv er”; (6) Jae n- Ch av ez was st atut or il y in el ig ib le forad

jus tm en t o f st atus ; an d (7 ) be cau se Jae n- Ch av ez d idno t re qu es t 5vo lu nt ary de pa rtu re b efo re the IJ a ndha d n otfil eda m ot io n t o re m an d wi th th e

BIA t o s eekvo lu nt ary de pa rtu re, tha t i ss ue was n otbe fo re the BIA. Ja en -Ch av ez fi le d thi s p et it io n fo r rev ie w. II . DISCUSSI ON A. Ju ri sd ic tio n As a thr es ho ldm at te r, we co nc lu de th atwe lac k juris di ct io n t o re vi ew a nu m be r of Jae n- Ch av ez’s cl ai m s. W e la ck juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w th e d is cret io na ry 1 de ci si on s t o d en y

Jae n- Ch av ez’s ap pl ic at io n fo r a wai ve r of in adm is si bi li ty, fil ed pu rs ua ntto INA § 2 12 (i) , 8 U.S.C. § 11 82 (i) (1 ), an d t o d en y hi s ap pl ic at io n fo r an ad jus tm en t o f st atus , fil edpu rs ua ntto INA § 2 45 , 8 U.S.C. § 12 55 . See INA § 2 12 (i) (2 ), 8 U.S.C. § 11 82 (i) (2 ); I NA § 2 42 (a)( 2) (B)( i), 8 U.S.C. § 1 25 2( a)(2 )(B) (i) . Thu s, t o the ex te ntJae n- Ch av ez’s p et it io n s eek s re vi ew of th e Att orne y Gene ral ’s di sc ret io na ry

de ni al of e ithe r fo rm

of r el ie f, we di sm is s h is pe ti ti on . Inad di ti on , we lac k juris di ct io n t o re vi ew th e fo ll owi ng un ex haus te d cl ai m s, wh ic h wer e n otarg ue d b efo re the BIA: (1) whet he r th e IJm is al lo cat edth e bu rd enof p ro of

; (2 ) whe th er the IJ was bi as ed ; an d (3 ) whe th er the go ve rn m en t

“We re view our subjec t-matter jurisdiction de novo.” Alvara do v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 610 1 F.3d 1311, 1314 ( 11th Cir. 2010). 6fai le d t o m eetit s b ur de n o f pr oo f with re ga rdto in te ntto de frau d the go ve rn m en t.

See Am ay a-Artun du ag a v . U.S. Att’y Gen., 4 63 F.3d12 47 , 12 50 (11 thCir . 20 06 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th atwe lac k juris di ct io n t o re vi ew cl ai m s ra is edinth e p et it io n fo r rev ie w th atwere n otrai se d wi th th e BIA). Si m il arl y , we lac k juris di ct io n t o rev ie w Jae n- Ch av ez’s reque stforvo lu nt ary de pa rtu re b ecau se Jae n- Ch av ez d id
no t re qu es t v ol un tary

de pa rtu re i n p ro ceed in gs be fo re the IJ. Se e Gal in do -Del Vall e v . Att ’y

Gen., 2 13 F.3d59 4, 5 99 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). Acco rd in gl y , we di sm is s th e p et it io n a s t o the se cla im s. Altho ug h we l ackjuri sd ic ti on to rev ie w th e d en ia l o f di sc ret io na ry rel ie f, we ret ai n juris di ct io n t o re vi ew qu es ti on s o f la w, su chas s tatu to ry eli gi bi li ty for di sc ret io na ry

rel ie f, an d c on st itut io na l cl ai m s. See INA § 2 42 (a)( 2) (D), 8 U.S.C. § 1 25 2( a)(2 )(D); Alv arad o v . U.S. Att’y Gen., 6 10 F.3d13 11 , 13 14 (11 thCir
. 20 10 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th atwe ret ai n juris di ct io n t o a dd res s the leg al qu es ti on of st atut ory eli gi bi li ty for d is cret io na ry rel ie f). Howe ve r, we do no t re vi ew ab us e-o fdi sc ret io n c la im s “ m erel y co uc he d i n c on st itut io na l l an gu ag e” o r co ns ti tu ti on al cl ai m s tha t ar e n otco lo rab le . Arias v. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 4 82 F.3d12 81 , 12 84 (11 th Ci r. 20 07 ). “ Fo r a co ns ti tu ti on al cla im to be co lo rab le , th e al le ge d v io la ti on ne ed
no t b e subs tant ia l, b utth e cl ai m m us t h av e so m e p os si bl e v al id ity .” Id . at 1 28 4 n.2 (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)
. 7Ja en -Ch av ez ra is es two co ns ti tu ti on al cla im s, n ei th er o f whi chis co lo rab le
.

Fi rs t, J aen -Ch av ez ar gu es th athe was s in gl edou t fo r rem ov al be cau se he is an His pa ni c m al e m arri edto a U.S. cit iz en , invi ol at io n o f th e Due Pro ces s an d Equa l Pro te ct io n C laus es . Jae n- Ch av ez p ro du cedno ev id en ce wh at so ev er i nd ic at in g tha t DHS in st itut edrem ov al pro ceed in gs ag ai ns t h im or a ny oth er Hi sp an ic m al e b as ed
on a di sc riminat ory

m ot iv e. Seco nd , Jae n- Ch av ez co nt en ds th athe was d ep riv edof e m pl oym en t i n vi ol at io n o f th e Due Pro ces s C laus e. Even ass um in g a rg ue nd o tha t J aen -Ch av ez ha d aco ns ti tu ti on al rig htto em pl oym en t, h e id en ti fie d n o s pe ci fic du e p ro ces s vi ol at io n o r ho w pro ceed in gs un de r th e imm ig rat io n s tatu te s d ep riv edhi m of t ha t rig ht . Accor di ng ly, we di sm is s the pe ti ti on with re sp ectto Jae n- Ch av ez’s
co ns ti tu ti on al cla im s. B. Appl ic ab le Sta nda rd o f Pro of in Remov al Proc eedi ng s Ja en -Ch av ez ar gu es th atth e st an da rdof p ro of ap pl ic ab le incri min al cas es sh ou ldap pl y

inrem ov al pro ceed in gs . This cla im ha s n o m eri t. Co ng res s ex pl ic it ly pro vi de d tha t the go ve rn m en t m us t p ro ve th atanali enis
rem ov ab le “by clearan d c on vi nc in g e vi de nc e.” INA § 2 40 (c)( 3) (A), 8 U.S.C. § 1 22 9a (c)( 3) (A). Mo reo ve r, th e Supr em e Co urt h as co nc lu de d tha t “ [a] de po rta ti on pro ceed in g i s a p ur el y civ il act io n t o d et erm in e el ig ib il ity to rem ai n i n 8th is co un try, notto pu ni sh anun lawfu l en try,” and , thus , “ [c]on si st en t wi th th e

ci vi l n atur e o f th e p ro ceed in g, v ari ou s p ro te ct io ns th atap pl y inth e co nt ex t o f a cri m in al tri al do no t ap pl y ina de po rta ti on he ari ng .” INS v . Lop ez-M en do za, 4 68 U.S. 10 32 , 10 38 , 10 4 S . Ct. 3 47 9, 3 48 3 (1 98 4) . This Co urt al so ha s re fu se d t o in co rp or at e th e p ro te ct io ns affo rd edto cri m in al de fen da nt s i nt o re m ov al pr oc eed in gs , whi chare i nh eren tl y civ il inna tu re. See De La Teja v. Un it edSta te s, 32 1 F .3d13 57 , 13 64 -6 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) (refu si ng to ap pl y th e Doubl e Je op ardy Cl au se to de po rta ti onhe ari ng be cau se do ub le jeop ardy att ach es on ly to pr oc eed in gs th atare es se nt ia ll y cri m in al inna tu re). We fin d n o re ve rs ib le erro r in th e IJ ’s andth e BIA’s ap pl ic at io n o f th e cl ear a ndco nv in ci ng ev id en ce s tand ardin Ja en -Ch av ez’s rem ov al pro ceed in gs . C. El ig ib il ity for Adjus tm ent o f Sta tus Ja en -Ch av ez ch al le ng es th e BIA’s co nc lu si on th athe was i ne li gi bl e fo r ad jus tm en t o f st atus be cau se he was i na dm is si bl e fo r ha vi ng m ad e a fal se cla im of U.S. cit iz en sh ip on hi s Fo rm I-9
. 2

When, as here , the B IA issues its own decision, we r eview only that decision, except to 2 the extent it adopts the I J ’s opinion. Alvara do, 610 F.3d at 1314. “We revie w the B IA’s statutory interpre tation de novo, but will defer to the BIA’s interpr etation of a statute if it is rea sonable a

nd does not contra dict the clea r intent of Congress.” J ag g erna uth v. U.S. Att’y

Gen., 432 F.3d 1346, 1350 ( 11th Cir. 2005). 9An i na dm is si bl e al ie n i s n oteli gi bl e fo r anad jus tm en t o f st atus to lawf ul pe rm an en t re si de nt . See INA § 24 5( a), 8 U.S.C. § 1 25 5( a) (re qu iri ng , in te r al ia , th atth e al ie n b e “ adm is si bl e to th e Uni te d S ta te s fo r pe rm an en t re si de nc e”). Und er § 21 2( a)(6 )(C) (ii ), anali en“ who fal se ly repre se nt s, o r ha s fa ls el y rep res en te d, h im se lf o r he rs el f to be a ci ti zenof t he Uni te d S tate s fo r an y pu rp os e orbe ne fitun de r th is ch ap te r (i nc lu di ng sec ti on 13 24 a o f th is ti tl e) o r an y othe r Fed eral or S ta te law i s i na dm is si bl e.” INA § 21 2( a)(6 )(C) (ii )(I), 8 U.S.C. § 1 18 2( a)(6 )(C) (ii )(I) ( em ph as is ad de d) . Sect io n 1 32 4a , refer en cedinparen th es es , pr oh ib it s an em

pl oyer fro m

hi rin g, re cru it in g o r ret ai ni ng un au th or iz edali en s an d
es tabl is he s a v eri fic at io n s y st em to en su re tha t em

pl oyees are au th or iz edto work inth e Uni te d S ta te s. INA § 27 4A, 8 U.S.C. § 1 32 4a . As pa rt o f th e v eri fic at io n syste m , th e p ro sp ect iv e em pl oyer m us t at te ston a fo rm

(i.e ., th e Fo rm

I-9 ), pr ov id edby the Att orne y Gene ral , th atitha s v eri fie d tha t the pro sp ect iv e em pl oyee is no t an un au th or iz edali enby exam in in g c ert ai n d oc um en ts , su chas a so ci al sec ur ity

card . INA § 2 74 A(b )(1 )(A), (b )(1 )(C) (i) , 8 U.S.C. § 1 32 4a (b )(1 )(A), (b )(1 )(C) (i)
. Ja en -Ch av ez ar gu es th athe di d n otm ak e a fal se cla im of U.S. ci ti zen sh ip withi n the m ean in g o f § 2 12 (a)( 6) (C)( ii ). Spe ci fic al ly, he co nt en ds th athi s ch eck in g the bo x m ark ed“ ci ti zenor n at io na l o f th e Uni te d S tate s” on th e Fo rm I-9
10to pro cu re em pl oym en t fr om

a pr iv at e em

pl oyer was n ot“ fo r an y

pu rp os e o r be ne fitun de r” the INA. Thi s ar gu m en t i s co nt rad ic te d b y th e p la inlan gu ag e o f § 2 12 (a)( 6) (C)( ii ), whi chex pl ic it ly refers to “ se ct io n 1 32 4a ” as anex am pl e o f “ an y

pu rp os e o r be ne fit ” und er the INA. The ref eren ce t o § 13 24 a cl earl y in di cat es Co ng res s’s in te ntfor§ 2 12 (a)( 6) (C)( ii ) to ap pl y to anali enwho pro vi de s t o apro sp ect iv e em pl oyer fal se in fo rm at io n abo uthi s i m m ig rat io n s ta tu s an d autho riz at io n t o wo rk inth e Uni te d S ta te s i n o rd er t o o bt ai n wo rk . There fo re, we joi n e ve ry othe r ci rcu it th atha s ad dr es se d thi s que st io n andco nc lu de th atanali enwho fal se ly repre se nt s hi m se lf t o b e a “ ci ti zenor n at io na l o f th e Uni te d S ta te s” on a Fo rm I-9 to ob ta in pr iv at e em

pl oym en t m ak es a fal se cla im of U.S. ci ti zen sh ip “ fo r an y pu rp os e o r be ne fitun de r” the INA. See Ferran s v . Hol de r, 61 2 F .3d52 8, 5 32 -3 3 (6 th Cir
. 20 10 ); R od rig ue z v . Muka se y , 51 9 F .3d77 3, 7 76 -7 7 (8 thCir . 20 08 ); Ke ch ka r v. Gon zal es , 50 0 F .3d10 80 , 10 85 (10 th Cir . 20 07 ); Th eo dr os v. Go nz al es , 49 0 F .3d 39 6, 4 02 (5t h C ir. 2 00 7)
. Acco rd in gl y , we fin d n o re ve rs ib le erro r in th e BIA’s 3
co nc lu si on th atJae n- Ch av ez i s i na dm is si bl e.

Some circuits wer e construing virtually identical languag e in I

NA § 237(a)(2) (D)( i), 8 3 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(3) (D)( i), which include s within the class of depor table (a s opposed to inadmissible) an alien who “fa lsely repr esents, or ha s falsely repr esente d, himself to be a c itiz en of the United States f

or any purpose or

benef it under this chapter

(includingsection 1324a of this title) or any

Fe dera l or State law . . . .”I NA § 237(a)(3) (D)( i), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)( 3)(D) (i). 11D. El ig ib il ity for § 2 12 (i) Wa iv er o f In ad m is si bi lty

Ja en -Ch av ez al te rn at iv el y co nt en ds th athi s i na dm is si bi li ty for m ak in g a fal se cla im

of U.S. ci ti zen sh ip was wai vabl e. Ja en -Ch av ez ci te s INA § 21 2( i), 8 U.S. C. § 1 18 2( i). Sect io n 2 12 (i) of t he INA, 8 U.S.C. § 11 82 (i) , gi ve s the Att orne y Gene ral di sc ret io n t o wai ve “ th e ap pl ic at io n o f cl au se (i) of s ub se ct io n (a )(6 )(C) of thi s se ct io n” if the ali enis th e sp ou se of aU.S. cit iz enan d m eet s ce rta inothe r requi rem en ts . INA § 2 12 (i) , 8 U.S.C. § 11 82 (i) . The p ro bl em forJae n- Ch av ez i s th athe was n otfou ndin adm is si bl e und er § 21 2( a)(6 )(C) (i) , bu t u nd er 4 § 2 12 (a)( 6) (C)( ii ). Ther e is no si m il ar wai ve r pr ov is io n fo r § 2 12 (a)( 6) (C)( ii ). See g en eral ly INA § 2 12 , 8 U.S.C. § 11 82 . Thu s, the BIA d idno t err in
co nc lu di ng Jae n- Ch av ez was in el ig ib le for a § 2 12 (i) waiv er o f in adm is si bi li ty. PETI TI ON DIS MIS SED I N PART, D ENI ED IN PART.

Subsection(a) (6)( C)(i) applies to a liens who commit fraud or make a materia l 4 misrepre sentation in the immigration context . Specifica lly , § 212(a) (6)( C)(i) provide s that an alien “who, by

fra ud or willfully

misrepre sentinga material fac t, seeks to proc ure ( or has sought to procure or has procure d) a visa, othe r docume ntation, or admission into the United States or other be nefit provided unde r this chapter is inadmissi ble.” I

NA § 212(a)(6) (C)(i), 8 U .S.C. § 1182(a) (6)( C)(i). 12