## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 11

- 1594 E LI Z AB ET H D AG U M K EATHL EY, P etitio ner, v.
E R I C H. H OLDER, J R . , A tto rneyGenera l ofthe U ni ted S tat es, Res pond e nt
.

Pe tition fo r Review o f O rde rs o f the Bo ard o f Immigration App eals

A RG UE D O CT OB ER 18, 2011

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 22, 2012

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, Chie f Judg e, a nd R IPPLE a nd K ANN E , C ircu it Judges . E A S T E RB R OO K, Chi e

f Judg e . El i zabe th Keathl ey, a citiz en o fthe Ph i l i ppi ne s, mar r i ed J o hn Kea th l ey, a c it i ze n o fthe U n ite d Sta te s, in 20 03 . Th e m ar ria ge w as p er for m ed in the Ph i l i pp i ne s . I n 2 0 0 4 the S t a t e De pa r t men ti s s ue d a n on im m igr an t K -3 v isa so th at E liz a b e t h co u ld live in the Unite d Sta tes wh ile aw ai ti ng ac ti on o n J ohn’ s r equest f orherper m anent r esi dence a s the i m m edi ate r el ati ve2 N o. 11

- 1594 ofa U
. S. ci ti zen. A fterar riv i ng i n the U ni ted S tat es, El i zabe th a ppl i ed f o r a nd r ec ei ve d a dr i ve r ’ s l i ce ns e. The S t a t e o fI l l i no i s a l so sent he r a v o t e r r e g i s t r a t i o n c a r d, an d s he v o te d i n the Nov embe r 2 00 6 el ec ti o n. V ot in g ha s com e ba c k to h au n t h er . I m m igr at ion offic ials w o r k i ngo n J o hn ’ s r e qu e s ttha th i s s po us e r ecei ve perm anent- re si dence st atus disc ove re d that El i zabe th ha d v o te d. S he ha s be eno r der ed r emove d f r o m the U ni ted S tat es

— an d the a dm i ni st r at i ve fi ndi ngtha t sh e vi ol ate d 18 U.S

. C. §611 by vo tin g i n a federa l el ecti on r en der s he r i na dm i ss ibl e, a nd thus i neli gibl e f o r a ny ben efi t as Joh n ’s s p ou se. See 8 U

. S. C

. §1182 (a)( 10)(D)(i)
. An i m m i g r at i o n j ud g e o r der ed he r r emov al, a nd the Bo a r d o fI mm i g r a t i o n Appe a l s a ffi r med

. Se ver alo fKeathl ey’ s a rg um ents tr ack those co nsi dered an d rejec te d inK im a ni v . Ho lder, N o. 11 -14 97, w h ich is b e i n gr e l e a s e d c o n t e mp o r a n e o u s l y . B u tth e r e a r e t wo p o t e n t i a l l y i mpo r t a n td i ff er en c e s b e t we e n th e t wo case s. Fi rs t, wh i l e Kim ani f al sel y r epres ented hi m sel fto be a U
. S. ci ti zen when reg i ste ring t o dri ve and vote , K eathl ey c on tend s that s he r epres ented her sel fto be a ci ti ze n o fthe Ph i l i pp ines , pr es en tingb o thhe r Ph i l i ppi ne pas spo r t an d he r K- 3 vi sa . Nei th erth e IJ no r the BIA deter m i ned w hetherK ea thl ey i s t el l i ng the tr uth abou t th i s. ( K i m ani, by co ntra st, was i n the U ni ted S tat es u n l a w fu lly, h av in g ov er st ay ed a vis ito r’s vis a, an d d id not w ant publ i c o ffi ci al s t o l ear n abo ut hi s s tatus as ana l i en . ) S ec o nd, w hile K imanic he ck ed a bo x o n the dri ver ’ s- l i cense f or m cl ai m i ng U.S

. ci ti zenshi p, Kea th l ey co nt en ds th ats he l eft th atb o x un ch ec k ed un tiltheN o. 11

- 1594 3 sta te offi ci al w ho superi ntended th e proces s

— an o ffi ci al kn ow in g t h at sh e is no ta ci ti zen

— ask ed her i fshe w ou ld l i k e to v o te
. K eath le y s ay s th ats he a ns wer ed “y es ”. The box a s s e r t i ngU. S

. c i t i z e ns hi p e nd e d u p c he c k e d; Kea th l eys ay s th ats he doe s no t r ememberwhethe r s he ch ec k ed the b ox or the s ta te e m pl o y ee di d s o . The IJ a nd B IA d id n ot d ec id e h ow th e b o x c am e t o b e c h ec ke d (it is possibl e that the st ate o ffi cial c h ecke d i t a fterKeathl ey al re ady had si gned the f or m ) o r w hethert h e s tat e o ffi ci alunder st o o d tha t Kea th l eyi s no t a ci ti ze n o fthe U ni ted S tat es. K eathl ey conte n d s that, bec ause the s tat e o ffi ci alknew th ats he i s ana l i en, the que st i o n ab o utv o tinga nd the sta te’ s deci si on t o send hera vot err egi st rati on ca rd l ed her to bel i eve that vo ti ng would be l aw ful. S he di d not kn ow a b o u t § 6 11, and after she learned that ali en s can ’t vot e s he as ked the S tat e o fI l l i nois to re vok e herr egi str ati o n ( i t di d)

. Al thoug h b y the n s he ha d v o te d, s he c o nte n d s t h at sh e d id n o t v iola te §6 11 be c au se th e s ta te officials’ advi ce g ave her a g oo d defens e o f“e ntra pm ent b y es to p p el”

— a m i s l e a d i n g l y n a me d d o c t r i n e th a ta s we ob se rv ed inKi m anis ho ul d b e c a l l e d “ o ffi c i a l a utho r i zation” inste ad

. Th at na m e w ou ld bet ter fi t the doc trine’s actualnatur e a nd sco pe. Th e i mm i g r a t i o n j ud g e di d n o tde c i de whether K eathl ey showed herpasspor t a nd vi sa to the s tat e o ffi c i a l ; wh e th e r th a to ffi c i a l r a i s e d th e s u b j e c to fv o ti ng knowing that K eathl ey i s a n al i en; and w hetherthat offi ci alcheck ed th e box cl ai m i ng ci ti zenshi p after K eat hl e y s i g ne d the f o r m. Al tho ugh the IJ f o un d h er4 N o. 11

- 1594 gener al l y c re dibl e, he d id notm ake fi nd i ngs o n thes e speci fi c i ssues bec ause he be l i eve d that e ntrap m en t by es to p p el, as a d oc tr in e o f cr im in al la w , i s irr ele va n t in i m m i gr ati on pro ceedi ngs. The B IA a gr eed with that c o nc l us i o n. Bo th the IJ a nd the BI A e r r e d. I t’ s tr ue enough that “entr apm ent by est oppe l” is th e n am e o f a d efe n se to a c rim in al p ro se c u tio n . B u t it d oe s no t follow th at th e d efe n se is i rre lev an t i n c ivil proce edi ngs. S ecti on 1 182( a) ( 10) ( D)( i ) decl ar es that an al i en wh o has v ote d i n vi ol ati on o fst ate o r f edera l l aw i s i nadm i ssibl e. T h e IJ and Boar d ther ef or e had to dete rm in e w h et h er K ea th ley vio lat ed §6 1 1 . A n d th e o n ly wa y t o de te r mi ne wh e the r a p e r s o n ha s v i o l a t e d a cri m i nal st atute i s t o exam i ne bo th the el em ents ofthat l aw and al l defenses pro perl y r ai sed. S up pose a s tatute decl ar es that m urder i s a cr i m e a nd defi nes m urd eras th e i nt en ti o na l k i l l i ngo fa human b eing. A per so n who kil ls in self-defen se, how ever, i s not gu il ty of m urd er. A p ro vi si on i n the I m m i gr ati on a nd N ati onal i ty A ct w i thhol ding benefi ts f ro m an a l i en w ho has “co m m i tte d m u rd e r ” re q u ire s t h e a ge n c y t o d ec id e, n ot on ly whethe r the a l i enk i l l ed so m eo ne , b uta l so whethe r the ki l l i ng wa s j us t i fi e d ( a nd thu s no t “ mur de r ” )
. J us t s o w i th §1 182( a) ( 10) ( D)( i ) and §6 11 . I fKeathl ey has a go od d efe n se , sh e h as n ot vio lat ed §6 11 an d r e m a i n s e ligib le f oradj ustm ent o fst atus. W hethershe h as a g oo d defens e depends i n parto n f acts thatr em ai n to b e a scer tai ned. W hethershe has vio lat ed §6 11 al so potenti al l y depends on the r ule that th e d efe n se of offic ial a u th or iza tio n is av aila b le on ly ifN o. 11

- 1594 5 the per son gi vi ng autho ri zati on had autho ri ty to do so

. Se e bo thKi m ania nd U nite d State s v. H ow el l , 37F. 3d 1197, 1205 ( 7th Ci r. 19 94)
. A n agent o fthe Se cre t S er vi ce can autho ri ze som eone to pass counter f ei t c u rrency as p art of an offici al inv estigation, but th e princ ip a l o f a hi g h s ch o o l c an ’ t au th o r i ze a n a l i ent o v o te , no m att erhow em phati cal l y the pri nci pal st ate s hi s v i ew that ci ti zenshi p i s i rr el evantto vo ti ng. O u r op in ion inKi m aniob se rv es th at st at e m ot or -ve h icle re gi str ar s l ack author i ty to pu t alien s o n the vot i ng r ol l s. W e d i d no t m ea n, ho wev er, tha t m o to r - ve hi cl e r eg i st r ars l ackall authority co ncer ni ng vo ti ng. The m oto r- vot er l egi sl ati on a uthor i zes o ffi ci al s i n a depar tm ent o fm oto r v e hi c l e s t o r e g i s t e r p e o pl e f o r fe de r a l e l e c t i o ns . 4 2 U. S

. C. §§ 1973 gg–3( a) ( 1) , 19 73g g–6 ( a). T he power t o re gi ste r som eone supposes som e a uthor i ty to asce rt ai n w hether l e g a l qua l i fi c a t i o ns h a v e bee n met, a nd o ffi c i a l s a r e s up posed to i nfo rm appli cants about the e l igib i l i ty rul es f or voting. 42 U
. S. C

. §1973 gg(a )( 5 ). T he se offici als thu s are enti tl ed to speakf orthe gov er nm ent o n thatsubj ect. W hat they s ay i s no t co ncl usi ve, bu t the o ffi ci al

- author i zati o n de f en se does no t depe nd o n the pub l i c o ffi ci alb eing r ightw h en giv in g a p p ro va l. O u r op in ion inKi m anic o ncer ned s om eone w ho r epres ented hi m sel fto be a ci ti zen; but w e m u st a ssum e that El i zabe th Keathl ey re prese nted her sel ft o b e an al i en. That’ s why ( she s ays ) she thought the o ffi ci al ’ s co nd uct i m pli ed ( though w ro ngl y) thatal i ens c oul d vote

. The l i ti gants have n ot explo re d the e xtent t o w hi ch offi ci al s a dm i ni ste ring the m oto r- vot err egi str a-6 N o. 11

- 1594 ti on pro cedure ar e a uthor i zed to i nter pret the t er m s o f th atl eg i sl at i o n a nd th e r equi r ement s o fv al i d r eg i st r at i o n, and to gi ve b inding advi ce t o appli cants. I t m ay w el l be unne ce ss ar y t o a ddr es s th ats ubj ect ( whi chi s r el ev an t onl y i f, o n re m and, the a gency cr edi ts K eathl ey’s st ate
m en ts abo utwhato cc ur r ed) , a nd i t woul d b e i m pr ude nt to ad d ress p oten t ially com p lex issues w ithou t brief s that explo re them full y. If th e IJ do es cr edi t Keathl ey’ s s tat em ents about w hat oc c u rre d , th e D ep ar tm en t o f H om ela n d Sec u r i ty sh ou ld gi ve ser i ous c onsid er ati on t o w i thdrawing i ts propos al that she b e decl ar ed i nadm iss ibl e a nd be re m ove d f ro m the U ni ted S ta tes. A per son w ho be haves w i th scr up ulo us hones ty onl y t o b e m i sl ed by a s tat e o ffi ci al sh o ul d be as wel co m e i n th i s co unt r y i n 20 12 as sh e w as w hen she enter ed i n 200 4. The peti ti on f orr evi ew i s g ra nted, and the m at ter i s r emande d f o r pro ce edi ng s co ns i st en t wi ththi s o pi ni o n.

8- 22- 12