* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-60527

Summary Calendar

ASHIQALI NAYANI

Petitioner

v.

MICHAEL B MUKASEY, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A95 324 639

Before STEWART, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ashiqali Nayani, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for review of

a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that dismissed his

appeal of the Immigration Judge’s order removing him to Pakistan. The BIA

concluded that Nayani was deportable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(3)(D) and

inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii) because Nayani made a false

claim of citizenship on an application for a loan guaranteed by the Small

Business Administration (SBA).

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

July 24, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-60527

2

Nayani argues that his false claim of citizenship on the SBA form does not

render him deportable or inadmissible because, although the Small Business

Administration Act (the Act) is a federal law, his false claim of citizenship was

not made for a purpose or benefit thereunder. Nayani argues that recipients of

SBA loans are not required to be citizens or lawful permanent residents and

that he did not actually receive a benefit under the Act. 

The BIA’s factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence. BrievaPerez v. Gonzales, 482 F.3d 356, 359 (5th Cir. 2005). In reviewing the BIA’s

construction of immigration statutes, the court will defer to the agency’s

interpretation if it is based on a permissible construction of the statute and if

Congress has not evidenced clear and unambiguous intent concerning the

question before the court. White v. INS, 75 F.3d 213, 215 (5th Cir. 1996) (citing

Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-43

(1984)). Under this standard, the court will not substitute its judgment for that

of the BIA; we may, though, reject any BIA interpretation that is “arbitrary,

capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.” Chevron, 467 U.S. at 844. 

The BIA concluded that there was a purpose to Nayani’s false claim of

citizenship because, under the Act, 15 U.S.C. § 631(i), SBA funds may not be

used to provide any direct benefit or assistance to anyone in the United States

unlawfully, as Nayani concedes he was when he signed the SBA application.

Further,the BIA found that Nayani made the false claim of citizenship with the

intent that he receive a benefit from signing the SBA application. This finding

was supported by substantial evidence. The BIA’s interpretation of the “purpose

or benefits” clause of Sections 1227(a)(3)(D) and 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii), an

interpretation focusing on Nayani’s intent rather than actual benefits received,

was not “arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to [a] statute” and is

therefore deserving of our deference. Chevron, 467 U.S. at 844. 

Nayani’s petition for review is DENIED.