Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-979_h3ci.pdf
Page Number: 25.0

4 

PATEL v. GARLAND 

GORSUCH, J., dissenting 

See 8 CFR § 245.2(a)(5)(ii).  At his removal hearing, Mr. Pa-
tel repeated points he had made to state officials, insisting
that he had harbored no intent to deceive anyone, and sub-
mitting that he remained statutorily eligible for relief.  See 
Matter  of  Richmond,  26  I. & N.  Dec.  779,  784  (BIA  2016)
(inadmissibility  is  triggered  when  a  misrepresentation  is
made “with the subjective intent of obtaining . . . benefits” 
(internal quotation marks omitted)).

None  of  this  moved  the  immigration  judge.  Relevant 
here, the immigration judge rested his decision on a factual 
finding.  He said he did not believe Mr. Patel’s testimony
that he checked the wrong box mistakenly.  Instead, the im-
migration judge found, Mr. Patel intentionally represented
himself falsely to obtain a benefit under state law.  Accord-
ing to the immigration judge, Mr. Patel had a strong incen-
tive to deceive state officials because he could not have ob-
tained a Georgia driver’s license if he had disclosed he was
“neither a citizen [n]or a lawful permanent resident.”  And 
because  intentionally  deceiving  state  officials  to  obtain  a 
benefit is enough to render an applicant statutorily ineligi-
ble for relief at step one, the immigration judge concluded, 
there  was  no  need  to  reach  the  second-step  question 
whether Mr. Patel warranted a favorable exercise of discre-
tion. 

Mr. Patel appealed the immigration judge’s ruling to the
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).  In his appeal, Mr. Pa-
tel argued that the immigration judge’s finding that he had 
an incentive to deceive state officials was simply wrong—
under Georgia law he was entitled to a driver’s license with-
out being a citizen or a lawful permanent resident given his
pending  application  for  adjustment  of  status  and  permis-
sion to work.  Mr. Patel submitted, too, that all the record 
evidence  pointed  to  the  conclusion  he  simply  checked  the
wrong box by mistake; even state officials agreed they had 
no case to bring against him for deception.  In the end, how-
ever,  a  divided  panel  of  the  BIA  rejected  the  appeal  by  a