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

For the Eig hth Circu it

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

No. 1 5- 10 27

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

Mu nn a So ng e God frey

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

v.

Lore tt a E. Ly

nc h, Un it ed Sta te s At to rn ey Gene ral

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: Sep te m

be r 21 , 20 15
Fil ed : J an ua ry

22 , 20 16

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , BYE and GRUENDER, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

BYE, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Mu nn a So ng e God frey pe ti ti on s fo r rev ie w of th e Bo ard of Im m ig rat io n App eal s' (BIA) de ci si on de nyin g hi s ap pl ic at io n fo r a d ju s t men t of st at us

. An

im m ig rat io n judg e (IJ ) de ni ed God frey's ap pl ic at io n afte r fin di ng God frey in te nd ed

to rep res en t hi m se lf as a Uni te d St at es ci ti zen on an I-9 Em pl oym en t Eli gi bi li ty

Veri fic at io n F or m . The BI A affi rm ed . W e d en y God frey's pe ti ti on for rev ie w.I

Pet it io ne r Mu nn a God frey is a 36 -y ear- ol d na ti ve of Tan zan ia who cam e to th e

U ni te d St at es in May 20 02 to at te nd W ic hi ta St at e Uni ve rs it y un de r an F

- 1

no ni m m ig ran t s tu de nt vi sa . Go df rey dr op pe d o ut of Wich it a St at e in Aug us t 2 00 2,

bu t he ha s rem ai ne d in th e Uni te d St at es si nc e. In 20 04 he m arri ed Traci God frey,

wit h wh om

he ha s o ne bi ol og ic al so n a nd fou r st ep -ch il dr en

.

Afte r dr op pi ng o u t o f W ic hi ta St at e, God frey at te nd ed ot he r co ll eg es an d

wor ke d at a su pe rm ark et an d Co ll eg e Hil l Nur si ng an d Reh ab il it at io n Cen te r. Each

em pl oyer req ui red God frey to fil l ou t an I-9 Em pl oym en t Eli g i b i li ty Veri fic at io n

fo rm , an d each ti m e he fil le d ou t th e fo rm , God frey ch eck ed a bo x in di cat in g he was

“ a ci ti zen or n at io na l o f th e Uni te d S ta te s.”

In Decem be r 20 05

, Traci God frey fil ed an I-1 30 Pet it io n fo r Ali en Rel at iv e on
be ha lf of he r hu sb an d, whi ch was ap pr ov ed in Sep te m be r 20 06

. Afte r th e I-1 30 was

ap pr ov ed

, God frey ap pl ie d to th e Uni te d St at es Ci ti zen an d Im m ig rat i o n Serv ic e (USCIS ) to ad

jus t hi s st at us to la wfu l pe rm an en t res id en t. Howev er, USCIS de ni ed

God frey’ s ap pl ic at ion in O ct obe r 2006 be caus e he ad m it te d he ha d fal se ly rep res en te d

th at he was a Uni te d S ta te s ci ti zen when he ap pl ie d t o a co m m un it y co ll eg e.

O n A p r i l 1 7

, 20 09

, USCIS se rv ed God frey wit h a Not ic e to App ear, whi ch

ch arg ed hi m wit h vi ol at in g th e t e r m s of hi s st ud en t vi sa

. God frey ap pe ared wit h

co un se l for a he ari ng be fo re an IJ

, ad m it te d th e al le ga ti on s in th e Not ic e to App ear,

an d co nc ed ed he was rem ov ab le . B ut he req ue st ed a he ari ng on hi s ap pl ic at io n fo r
ad jus tm en t of st at us un de r Sect io n 24 5 of th e Im m ig rat io n an d Nati on al it y Act (INA),

co di fie d a t 8 U.S.C. § 1 25 5.

The IJ he ld an ev id en ti ary he ari ng on th e ap pl ic at io n for adju st m en t of sta tu s

on Apr il 9, 20 10

. At th e he ari ng , USCIS op po se d God frey's ap pl ic at io n on th e

-2

-gr ou nd s th at he fal se ly rep res en te d he was a ci ti zen whe n he ap pl ie d fo r co m m un it y

co ll eg e. Bu t it al so c r os s- ex am in ed God frey ab ou t hi s rep res en ta ti on s in th e I-9

fo rm s he fil le d ou t in hi s em pl oym en t ap pl ic at io ns

. God frey t es ti fie d th at w h e n he

fil le d ou t th e I-9 fo rm s he ho pe d hi s em pl oyer wou ld be li ev e he was a Uni te d St at es
ci ti zen be cau se he wou ld no t ha ve a job if hi s em pl oyer fo un d ou t he was no t a Uni te d

St at es cit iz en . At th e en d of the he ari ng , th e IJ st at ed he wou ld no t con si de r th e I-9

fo rm s be cau se th ey were no t in th e reco rd be f o r e h i m, an d he in di cat ed he wou ld

gr an t God frey's ap pl ic at io n fo r ad jus tm en t. God frey ha d no t co m p l et ed hi s
bi om e t r i c s , h o wev er, so th e IJ co nt in ue d th e he ari ng to Ju ne 4, 20 10

, an d di d no t

en te r a d eci si on

.

A week be fo re th e he ari ng , th e Dep art m en t of Hom el an d Secu rit y fil ed an I-9

Fo rm th at God frey co m

pl et ed fo r Co ll eg e Hil l Nur si ng an d Reh ab il it at io n on Mar ch

10

, 20 10
– fi v e m on th s aft er hi s fir st he ari ng be fo re th e IJ
– on whi ch he ag ai n

in di cat ed th at he was a “ ci ti zen or na ti on al of th e Uni te d St at es .” God frey’ s co un se l

fil ed a su pp le m en ta l bri ef and ad di ti on al ev id en ce. The IJ acce pt ed each fil in g in to

ev id en ce an d c on ti nu ed th e h eari ng to Feb ru ary 16 , 20 11

.

At th e Feb ru ary 20 11 he ari ng , God frey te st ifi ed ab ou t th e Mar ch 10

, 20 10

, I-9

Fo rm

. God frey te st ifi ed he di d no t ha ve th e in st ru ct io n fo rm whe n he was fil li ng ou t

th e I-9 Fo rm , an d th at

, whi le he di d no t kn ow wha t “ na ti on al ” m ean t, he kn ew wha t

a ci ti zen was an d he su sp ect ed a ci ti zen was be tt er th an a na ti on al

. He te st ifi ed th at

he m ark ed th e “ ci ti zen or na ti on al ” bo x be cau se he kn ew he ha d to m ark it to ke ep hi s job

.

The IJ fo un d God frey’ s te st im on y cred ib le

, bu t he al so fo un d God frey ha d

fal se ly rep res en te d hi m se lf to be a ci ti zen , n o t a n at io na l, on th e I-9 Fo rm

. W hi le

God frey was un ab le to pr ov id e a sp eci fic de fin it io n of th e te rm “ ci ti zen ,” an d di d no t

kn ow th e di ffer en ce bet ween a “ ci ti zen ” an d a “ na ti on al ,” th e IJ no te d t ha t Go df rey

te st ifi ed he kn ew th at “ rep res en ti ng h i ms e lf as a ci ti zen wou ld be m or e he lp fu l in

-3

-ob ta in in g em pl oym en t,” an d he wou ld lo se hi s job if he was no t a ci ti zen

. The IJ

fo un d si gn ifi can t th at God frey ha d m is rep res en te d hi s ci ti zen sh ip st at us on an I-9

Fo rm fiv e m o n t h s aft er he fir st ap pe ared be fo re th e co ur t fo r rem ov al pr oc eed in gs

. Bas ed on th is ev id en ce, th e IJ fo un d God frey ha d fai le d to de m on st rat e “ cl earl y an d

be y on d a do ub t” th at he was ad m is si bl e to th e Uni te d St at es be cau se he pu rp os efu ll y

rep res en te d hi m se lf to be a Uni te d St at es ci ti zen in or de r to ob ta in a be ne fit un de r th e INA, a no n- waiv ab le vi ol at io n. 8 U.S.C. § 1 1 8 2( a)(6 )(C) (ii )(I). The IJ th eref or e
de ni ed God frey’ s ap pl ic at io n fo r ad jus tm en t of st at us an d or de red God frey rem ov ed

to Tanz an ia

.

God frey ap pe al ed to th e BIA. The BIA affi rm ed th e IJ ’s fin di ng s th at God frey

kn ew he was no t a ci ti zen an d th at hi s fal se cl ai m of ci ti zen sh ip fo r em pl oym en t was

no n- waiv ab le

, an d it reject ed God frey’ s arg um en t th at th e IJ erre d by reo pe ni ng th e

reco rd to acce pt th e I-9 fo rm s. It ad op te d th e IJ ’s de ci si on an d di sm is se d God frey’ s

ap pe al on Marc h 2 0, 2 01 3.

God frey ti m el y pe ti ti on ed th is Co ur t in Apr il 20 13

, bu t m ov ed to rem an d to th e

BIA so it co ul d de te rm in e whe th er an I

- 9 F o r m c ou ld be us ed as ev id en ce in a

rem ov al pr oc eed in g. God frey arg ue d th ree de ci si on s fo ll owi ng hi s 20 11 im m ig rat io n
he ari ng – th e Uni te d Stat es Su pr em e Co ur t's de ci si on s in Ch am be r of Co m

m erce v.

W hi ti ng , 56 3 U.S. 58 2 (2 01 1)

, an d Ariz on a v. Uni te d St at es , 13 2 S. Ct

. 24 92 (2 01 2)

,

an d th e Thi rd Ci rcu it 's de ci si on in Loz an o v. Ci ty of Hazel to n, 72 4 F.3 d 29 7 (3 d Ci r.

20 13 )
– affe ct ed th is is su e. Thi s Co ur t gr an te d G o d f rey’ s m ot io n an d rem an de d to

th e BIA.

Befo re th e BIA is su ed a de ci si on in God frey's cas e on rem an d, th is Co ur t he ld

in Down s v. Hol de r, 75 8 F.3d 99 4, 99 8 (8t h Cir. 20 14 ), th at an I-9 co ul d be us ed as

ev id en ce in a rem ov al pr oc eed in g, an d th e BIA su bs eq ue nt ly is su ed a de ci si on wit h

th e sa m e ho ld in g. Mat te r of Bet t, 26 I. & N. Dec. 43 7, 20 14 W L 66 80 84 9 at *5 (BIA

Oct. 30

, 20 14 ) (ci ti ng Down s, 75 8 F.3 d at 99 8)

. Ci ti ng th es e two cas es , th e BIA he ld

-4

-in God frey's c a s e t h a t th e IJ pr op erl y co ns id ered th e I-9 fo rm s, an d it di sm is se d

God frey’ s ap pe al . God frey tim el y pe ti ti on ed th is Co ur t o n J an ua ry 7, 2 01 5.

II

God frey pe ti ti on s th is Co ur t fo r rev ie w of th e BIA's de ci si on on th ree gr ou nd s: ( 1 ) t h e IJ 's an d BIA's de ci si on s were un su pp or te d by su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce; ( 2 )

God frey is el ig ib le fo r a waiv er of in ad m is si bi li ty; an d (3 ) th e IJ 's de ci si on to co ns id er

th e I-9 fo rm s aft er he in it ia ll y in di cat ed he wou ld gr an t th e pe ti ti on vi ol at ed du e

pr o c e s s

. We 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 a t io n of th e st at ut es an d reg ul at io ns it

ad m in is te rs .” Sp acek v. Hol de r, 68 8 F.3 d 53 6, 53 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (q uo ti ng Dav il aMeji a v

. Mu ka se y , 53 1 F.3d 62 4, 62 7 (8t h Cir. 20 08 )). W e wil l o ve rtu rn th e BIA’s

fin di ng s of fact on ly if th ey are un su pp or te d by su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce. Garci aGon zal ez v. Hol de r, 73 7 F.3 d 49 8, 50 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ). W e typic al ly rev ie w on ly th e

BIA’s de ci si on

. Id

. Howev er, "wh en —as he re— th e BIA ad op te d th e fin di ng s or th e

reas on in g of th e IJ

, we al so rev ie w th e IJ 's de ci si on as pa rt of th e fin al ag en cy act io n."

Id . (in te rn al qu ot at io ns om it te d)

.

A

God frey arg ue s th e BIA's fin di ng th at God frey fals el y rep res en te d h im se lf t o
b e a "ci ti zen " an d no t a "n at io na l" on Fo rm I-9 is un su pp or te d by s u b s t a n t i a l

ev id en ce.

An al ie n m ay se ek ad

jus tm en t of hi s im m ig rat io n st at us un de r 8 U.S.C.
§ 12 55 (a). To be el ig ib le fo r a d ju s t m en t, th e al ie n m

us t be el ig ib le to rece iv e an

im m ig ran t vi sa an d m

us t be “ ad m is si bl e to th e Uni te d St at es .” 8 U.S.C. § 12 55 (a)( 2)

. The al ie n pet it io ne r be ars th e bu rd en to pr ov e “ cl earl y an d be y on d do ub t” th at he is

no t i na dm is si bl e. 8 U.S.C. § 12 29 a(c) (2 )(A).

-5

-An al ie n is in ad m is si bl e whe n, in te r al ia

, he fal se ly rep res en ts hi m se lf as a

ci ti zen of th e Uni te d S t a t e s fo r an y 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. 8 U.S.C. § 11 82 (a)( 6) (C)( ii ). Thi s su b s e c t io n do es no t di sq ua li fy

an al ie n fro m ad m is si on , ho wev er, whe n he fal se ly rep res en ts hi m se lf to be a na ti on al

. Id .; Ro dr ig ue z v . Mu ka se y , 51 9 F .3d 77 3, 7 76 (8t h C ir. 2 00 8)

.

In th is cas e, God frey ch eck ed a bo x on hi s Em pl oym en t Eli gi bi li ty Veri fic at io n

Fo rm I-9 th at he w a s a "ci ti zen or na ti on al ." Fo rm I-9 (em ph as is ad de d)

. Bu t th e 1

di sju nc ti ve "o r" m ak es it im po ss ib le to te ll whe th er th e al ie n in te nd ed to r e p r e s e nt

hi m se lf on Fo rm I-9 as a ci ti zen (in whi ch cas e he is in ad m is si bl e) o r a n at io na l (i n
whi ch cas e he m ay st il l ap pl y fo r ad m is si on ). Ther efo re, th e m ere fact of ch eck in g

t h e b ox is in su ffi ci en t to fin d th e al ie n in te nd ed to fal se ly rep res en t hi m se lf as a
ci ti zen

. Mayem

ba v. Hol de r, 77 6 F.3 d 54 2, 5 4 5

– 4 6 ( 8 th Ci r. 20 15 ). Rat he r, th e

al ie n’s p u r p o s e in ch eck in g th e bo x is de te rm in at iv e. Ro dr ig ue z, 51 9 F.3 d at 77 7.

The ev id en ce m

us t "cl earl y an d be y on d do ub t es ta bl is h th at [th e al ie n] di d no t fal se ly

rep res en t hi m se lf as a Uni te d Stat es ci ti zen whe n he m ark ed th e ‘citi zen or na ti on al

of th e Uni te d St at es ' bo x on th e Fo rm I-9 s." Kiro ng v. Muk as ey , 52 9 F.3 d 80 0, 80 5
(8 th Cir . 20 08 ).

God frey fir st arg ue s th e IJ di d no t pr op erl y an al y ze th e le ga l is su e of whe th er
he in te nd ed to rep res en t hi m se lf as a ci ti zen or a na ti on al

. God frey no te s th at th e IJ

m is qu ot ed Fo rm I-9 in hi s su m m ary o f th e ev id en ce by sta ti ng God frey m ark ed th e
"ci ti zen an d na ti on al it y " bo x. W hi le th e IJ di d m is qu ot e Fo rm I-9

, th e reco rd as a
who le sh ows he pr op erl y an al y zed whe th er God frey in te nd ed to rep res en t hi m se lf as

a ci ti zen or na ti on al

. Els ewh er e in hi s an al y si s of God frey’ s ap pl ic at io n fo r
ad jus tm en t, th e IJ co rrec tl y qu ot ed Fo rm I-9 an d ex pl ai ne d th at un de r Eig ht h Ci rcu it

c a se la w, th e al ie n’s in te nt in ch eck in g th e bo x is de te rm in at iv e. Th e I J t h e n

In 20 09

, USCIS up da te d Fo rm I-9 to req ui re th e em pl oyee to in di cat e in 1

se pa rat e ch eck bo xe s wh et he r he is a ci ti zen or a na ti on al

.

-6

-an al y zed , b as e d on th e ev id en ce, whe th er God frey i nt en de d to rep res en t hi m se lf as

a “ na ti on al ” or a “ ci ti zen .” The BIA, to o, d is cu ss ed whet he r God frey was cl ai m in g

to be a ci ti zen or a na ti on al on Fo rm I-9

.

The refo re, al th ou gh th e IJ di d m is qu ot e Fo rm I-9 , th e en ti ret y

of h is an al y si s
sh ows he was p ro pe rly anal y zi ng th e k ey le ga l is su e: whe th er God frey i nt en de d to

rep res en t hi m s e l f a s a ci ti zen or a na ti on al

. His in it ia l m is qu ot e do es no t le av e hi s
de ci si on un su pp or te d by su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce. See Reyes-M or al es v. Gon zal es , 43 5

F.3 d 93 7, 94 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (fi nd in g h a r ml e s s th e BIA’s refe ren ce to th e wro ng

su bs ect io n o f a fed eral reg ul at io n where th e BIA ap pl ie d t he co rrec t l an gu ag e in it s

an al y si s) ; Po erwan ti ni v. Go nz al es , 21 7 F. App ’x 59 2, 59 3 (8t h Cir. 20 07 ) (“ To t he

ex te nt th a t t he IJ 's an al y si s m is st at ed or fai le d to in co rp or at e fact s in cl ud ed in th e

‘Ev i de nc e Pres en te d’ se ct io n of th e or de r, an y erro r is ha rm le ss be cau se we wil l

rev ie w di rect ly whe th er su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce in th e reco rd su pp or ts t h e le ga l

de te rm in at io n o f th e BIA.”)

.

God frey al so arg ue s th e IJ 's de ci si on was un su pp or te d by su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce
be cau se hi s te st im on y – whi ch t h e IJ fo un d cred ib le
– sh ows he di d no t kn ow th e
di ffer en ce be twee n a ci ti zen an d a na ti on al

, an d th eref or e he co ul d no t ha ve

pu rp os efu ll y in te nd ed to rep res en t hi m se lf as a ci ti zen to ga in an im m ig rat io n be ne fit

. God frey's te st im on y , ho wev er, be li es th is arg um en t. God frey te st ifi ed he be li ev ed he

ha d to be a ci ti zen to ke ep hi s job an d he rep res en te d hi m se lf as a ci ti zen be cau se he

un de rs to od be in g a ci ti zen was be tt er th an be in g a na ti on al

. His te st im on y th eref or e

in di cat es he un de rs to od

, to s o me e x t e n t

, th e di ffer en ce be twee n a ci ti zen an d a

na ti on al an d rep res en te d hi m se lf as a ci ti zen fo r pu rp os es of ga in in g a n d k e e pi ng

em pl oym en t.

Th e ti m in g of God frey's rep res en ta ti on s al so su pp or ts th e IJ 's fin di ng s th a t

God frey rep res en te d h i ms e l f to be a ci ti zen , no t a na ti on al

, be cau se God frey

co nt in ue d to rep res en t hi m se lf as a c it iz en ev en aft er hi s im m ig rat io n pr oc eed in gs

-7

-co m

m en ced

. In 20 06

, USCIS de ni ed God frey's ap p l i cat io n to ad jus t hi s st at us to

la wfu l pe rm an en t res id en t be cau se he ha d fal se ly rep res en te d he was a Uni te d St at es
ci ti zen whe n h e a p p l i e d to co m m un it y co ll eg e. God frey's pr io r cl ai m s of fal se
ci ti zen sh ip al on e are ev id en ce of hi s in te nt to rep res en t hi m se lf as a ci ti zen

. See
Mayem ba

, 77 6 F.3 d at 54 6 n.2

. Bu t m or e im po rta nt ly, th e USCIS de ni al le tt er fro m

20 06 sh ow s God frey kn ew wha t a ci ti zen was whe n he fil le d ou t th e I-9 fo rm in

Mar ch 20 10
– fo ur y ears aft er USCIS de ni ed hi s a p p l i cat io n fo r la wfu l pe rm an en t

res id en t st at us an d el ev en m on th s aft er hi s rem ov al pr oc eed in gs co m m en ced

. Thi s

ev id en ce su pp or ts th e IJ 's fin di ng th at God frey kn ew th e di ffer en ce be twee n a ci ti zen

an d a na ti on al

, an d rep res en te d hi m se lf as a ci ti zen be cau se he be li ev ed he ne ed ed to

be a ci ti zen to ke ep hi s jo b, as he tes ti fie d.

It is God frey's bu rd en to pr ov e cl earl y an d be y on d a do ub t th a t h e mea n t to

rep res en t hi m se lf as a na ti on al an d no t a ci ti zen

. Kiro ng , 52 9 F.3d at 80 5. God frey

ha s p ro du ced no ev id en ce t ha t h e in te nd ed to rep res en t h im se lf a s a "n at io na l," an d

a n y su ch ev id en ce wou ld co nt rad ic t hi s te st im on y th at he di d no t kn ow wha t a

"n at i o n a l " is

. See Mayem ba , 7 76 F.3 d at 54 6 (fi nd in g th at , i nt er al ia , t he fact s th at

pe ti ti on er kn ew wha t a ci ti zen was an d di d no t kn ow wha t a na ti on al was su pp or te d

fin di ng of i na dm is si bi li ty). Based on God frey's te st im on y , h is pr io r fal se cl ai m s o f

ci ti zen sh ip

, an d th e fa l s e c l a im of ci ti zen sh ip he m ad e aft er rem ov al pr oc eed in gs

co m m en ced

, th e BIA's an d IJ 's fin di ng th at God frey fal se ly rep res en te d hi m se lf to be

a "c it iz en " i s s up po rte d b y su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce.

B

God frey ne xt arg ue s he is el ig ib le f o r w a iv er of in ad m is si bi li ty. The INA

au th or iz es th e Att or ne y Gen eral to waiv e in ad m is si bi li ty un der ce rt ai n ci rc um sta nces , de pe nd in g on th e reas on th e al ie n is in ad m is si bl e. See ge ne ral ly 8 U.S.C. § 11 82

. Und er 8 U.S.C. § 11 82 (a)( 6) (C), an al ie n m ay be in ad m is si bl e fo r (i) m is rep res en ti ng

a m at eri al fact in or de r to pr oc ur e ad m is si o n or im m ig rat io n do cu m en ta ti on ; or (ii )

-8

-fal se ly cl ai m in g to be a ci ti z e n o f th e Uni te d St at es to ob ta in a be ne fit

. Tha t

su bs ect io n als o aut ho riz es a "wai ve r of cl au se (i) " – m is rep res en ti ng a m at eri al fact

– in or de r to av oi d ha rd sh ip to th e al ie n's fam il y

. 8 U

. S .C. §§ 11 82 (a)( 6) (C)( ii i),

11 82 (i) (1 ). Bu t it do es no t au th or iz e a waiv er of cl au se (ii ), fal se ly cl ai m in g to be a
Uni te d S ta te s ci ti zen to ob ta in a be ne fit

.

God frey was fo un d to be in el ig ib le fo r m ak i n g a fal se m is rep res en ta ti on of

ci ti zen sh ip u n de r 8 U.S.C. § 11 82 (a)( 6) (C)( ii ), no t un de r (6 )(C) (i)

. The INA,

th eref or e, do es no t au th or iz e a waiv er of hi s in el ig ib il it y to av oi d ha rd s hi p to hi s

fam il y . San do va l v . Hol de r, 64 1 F .3d 98 2, 9 86 (8t h C ir. 2 01 1)

.

C

Fi na l l y, G o d f

r ey arg ue s th e IJ vi ol at ed hi s rig ht to Due Pro ces s whe n he

ad m it te d ev id en ce of God frey's fal se rep res en ta ti on on th e I-9 Fo rm aft er he al read y

gr an te d God frey's pe ti ti on fo r ad jus tm en t of sta tu s. Thi s argu m en t is bo th fact ua ll y

an d l eg al ly inc or rect

.

Fi rs t, th e IJ ha d no t co nc lu de d God frey's pr oc eed in gs be fo re he ad m it te d th e

I-9 . At th e en d of th e he ari ng on Apr il 9, 20 10 , t he IJ in di cat ed he wou ld gr an t th e
ad jus tm en t o f st at us , bu t co un se l fo r God frey in fo rm ed th e IJ th at God frey wou ld

ne ed hi s bi om et ric s ta ke n be fo re th e IJ co ul d gr an t th e ad jus tm en t. The IJ co nt in ue d

th e he ari ng to gi ve God frey ti m e t o ta ke th es e bi om et ric s, bu t th e Uni te d St at es

su bm it te d th e I-9 be fo re God f r ey co m pl et ed th es e bi om et ric s an d th e IJ fo rm al ly

gr an te d ad

jus tm en t. The refo re, t h e r e c o r d was no t "cl os ed " as God frey arg ue s,
be cau se th e IJ ha d no t en te red a fin al or de r gr an ti ng hi s ap pl ic at io n fo r ad jus tm en t of

st at us

. See 8 C.F.R. § 10 03 .23 (a) (au th or iz in g par ty to su bm it m ot io n to reco ns id er

or reo pe n "p rio r to th e fi na l o rd er o f an Im m ig rat io n J ud ge "). Si nc e th e rec or d was

no t cl os ed

, th e IJ ha d br oa d di sc ret io n to reo pe n th e reco rd an d co ns id er th e ev id en ce,

se e 8 U.S.C. § 12 29 a(b )(1 ); I v a n o v v. Gon zal es , 48 7 F.3 d 63 5, 63 9 n.4 (8 th Ci r.

-9

-20 07 ) ("[ T] he reg ul at io ns pe rmi t a n I J to reo pe n rem ov al pr oc eed in gs at an y ti m e

up on hi s or he r own m ot io n." ), an d, in fact

, an affi rm at iv e du ty to de ve lo p th e reco rd

. Zeah v. Hol de r, 74 4 F.3 d 57 7, 58 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ). As a fact ua l m at te r, Go df rey is

in co rrec t th at th e pr oc eed in gs were co nc lu de d an d th e IJ ha d gr an te d hi s ap pl ic at io n

fo r ad jus tm en t.

Seco nd

, th e IJ 's de ci si on to ad m it Fo rm I-9 di d no t vi ol at e God frey's du e

pr oc es s rig ht s. To de m on st rat e a du e pr oc es s vi ol at io n, th e pe ti ti on er m us t sh ow th e

IJ co m m it te d a "fu nd am en ta l p ro ced ur al erro r" an d t he erro r res ul te d i n p reju di ce –

th at is to sa y , th e ou tc om e of th e pr oc eed in g wou ld ha ve be en di ffer en t bu t fo r th e

erro r. Id

. (q uo ti ng Lop ez v. Hein au er, 33 2 F.3 d 50 7, 51 2 (8 t h C i r

. 2 00 3) ). The

reco rd de fin it iv el y es ta bl is he s th e ou tc om e of th e pr oc eed in gs wou ld ha ve be en
di ffer en t i f th e IJ ha d n ot ad m it te d t he I-9 Fo rm , bec au se th e IJ st at ed on th e rec or d

th at it wou ld gra nt God frey's pe ti ti on be fo re i t ad m it te d t hi s fo rm

.

Bu t th e IJ 's dec is io n to ad m it th e I-9 was n ot a fu nd am en ta l p ro ced ur al erro r.

"To co m po rt wit h th e req ui rem en ts of du e pr oc es s, ev id en ce m us t be 'pr ob at iv e an d

it s a d mi s s i o n

. . . fu nd am en ta ll y fai r

. . . .'" Tun v. Gon zal es , 48 5 F.3 d 10 14

, 10 26
(8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (q uo ti ng Ny am a v. Ash cro ft, 3 57 F.3 d 81 2, 81 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 )).

Afte r th e IJ ad m it te d th e I-9 , h e ga ve God frey am pl e op po rtu ni ty – ov er a year – to

ad dr es s th e al le ga ti on an d to su bm it hi s own ev id en ce. God frey was ab le to te st ify

a se co nd ti m e ab ou t hi s in te n t i n f i l l i n g ou t th e fo rm , an d he fil ed br ie fin g on hi s

po si ti on

. The re was no th in g fu nd am en ta l l y un fai r ab ou t th es e pr oc eed in gs

. The refo re, th e IJ 's de ci si on to ad m it th e I-9 was no t fu nd am en ta l pr oc ed ur al erro r, an d

it di d n ot vi ol at e God frey's du e p ro ces s ri gh ts

.

III

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we d en y God frey's pe ti ti on for rev ie w.

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

-1 0-