Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-979_h3ci.pdf
Page Number: 8

4 

PATEL v. GARLAND 

Opinion of the Court 

this requirement.  Section 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) renders inad-
missible an “alien who falsely represents, or has falsely rep-
resented,  himself  or  herself  to  be  a  citizen  of  the  United 
States  for  any  purpose  or  benefit  under”  state  or  federal 
law.  The  Board  of  Immigration  Appeals  (BIA)  has  inter-
preted this provision to apply when a noncitizen (1) makes
a false representation of citizenship (2) that is material to a 
purpose or benefit under the law (3) with the subjective in-
tent  of  obtaining  the  purpose  or  benefit.  Matter  of  Rich-
mond, 26 I. & N. Dec. 779, 786–787 (2016).  Applying this 
test,  USCIS 
that  Patel  had  violated 
§1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) and was therefore ineligible for status
adjustment.

concluded 

Several  years  later,  DHS  initiated  removal  proceedings
against the Patels because they were present in the United
States without having been admitted—the same illegal en-
try that Patel had sought to remedy in his initial applica-
tion for adjustment of status.  See §1182(a)(6)(A)(i).  Patel 
conceded that he was removable on that ground but sought
relief from removal by repeating his request for discretion-
ary adjustment to lawful permanent resident status.

Now before an Immigration Judge, Patel’s request for re-
lief raised the same question that had been at issue in his 
application  before  USCIS:  whether  the  misrepresentation
of  citizenship  on  his  driver’s  license  application  rendered 
him  ineligible  for  discretionary  adjustment.    He  conceded 
that he had checked the “citizen” box on that application.
But he argued that he had done so by accident—and there-
fore  without  the  subjective  intent that  the  BIA  has  inter-
preted §1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) to require.

The Immigration Judge concluded otherwise.  The judge
explained that Patel was evasive when asked exactly how 
he had made a mistake.  And though Patel testified that he
had provided his alien registration number on his applica-
tion, which would have identified him as a noncitizen, the 
actual application showed that he had not.  The judge also