___________ No. 96-1142

___________ Mourad Abu Remileh, * * Petitioner, * * On Petition for Review of an v. * Order of the Immigration and * Naturalization Service. Immigration and Naturalization * Service, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Respondent. *

___________ Submitted: October 25, 1996 Filed: October 30, 1996

___________ Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
Mourad Abu Remileh, a Palestinian in the United States on a non immigrant student visa, petitions for review of an order adopting a n administrative law judge's summary judgment that Remileh violated 8 U.S.C. § 1324c(a)(2). We deny the petition. Section 1324c provides for the asses sment of civil penalties against individuals who knowingly engage in acts of document fraud for the purpose of satisfying any requirement of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101-1524 ( 1994). The regulations implementing the Act require em ployers physically to examine documents verifying a new employee' s id entityand eligibility to work in the United States. 8 C.F.R . § 274a.2(b)(ii) (1996); see 8 U.S.C. § 1324a. Conversely, to be legally employed in the United States, an alien must be authorized to work and mus t provide valid documents to an employer to verify eligibility. See 8 C.F.R .

### -2-

§ 274a.12.
Th e Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) alleged Remile h violated 8 U.S.C. § 1324c(a)(2) by using the birth certificate of hi s cous in, a United States citizen, to obtain employment at a Minnesot a amusement park. Remileh admitted he applied for the job using his cousin' s name, and used his cousin's name and social security number on the IN S employment eligibility verification form, which Remileh completed before starting work. On the same form, Remileh also s wore he is a United States citizen. Although the form states certain verifying documents must b e provided, Remileh did not present the documents when he signed the form an d his employer did not immediately request them. Instead, when Remileh went to the payroll office for his first paycheck two weeks after starting his job, R emileh's employer asked for documentation. In response, Remile h bro ught in his cousin's birth certificate, which Remileh had altered t o reflect his own birth date.
Inthis petition for review, Remileh contends summary judgment wa s inappropriate because there is a genuine issue of material fact about his intend ed purpose in presenting the altered birth certificate. Remile h claims that because the immigration law requires employers to revie w verify ing documents within three days after an employee starts work , Remileh did not know his employer wanted the birth certificate to confirm his eligibility for e mployment, and thus, it is unclear Remileh presented the false birth certi ficate for the purpose of verifying his eligibility.
We co nclude there is no genuine issue of material fact precludin g summary judgment. The mere existence of some al leged factual dispute does not d efeat summary judgment if the dispute is not "genuine," meaning a reas onable jury could not find for the nonmoving party. Anderson v . Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Summary judgment should no t be denied simply because

### -3-

issues of motive or intent are involved. Meister v. Georgia-Pacific Corp. , 43 F.3d 1154, 1159 (7th Cir. 1995). In this case, a reasonable jury coul d only conclude Remileh knew his employer wanted the documentation for immigration purposes and presented the a ltered birth certificate to verify his eligibility to work in th e United States. The e mployer's two-week delay in asking for documentation does not matter under the circumstances. Even if Remileh's motive fo r adopting his cousin's identity only at his job was Remileh's fear of the Is lamic fundamentalist group Hamas, Remileh's reason for showing th e altered birth certificate to his employer was to verify his eligibility to work. We deny Remileh's petition for review. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.