Source: https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-8-part-k-chapter-2
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 04:41:26+00:00

Document:
The foreign national made the false representation for any purpose or benefit under theImmigration and Nationality Act (INA) or any other federal or state law.
The officer should examine all facts and circumstances when evaluating inadmissibility for falsely claiming U.S. citizenship. The officer should follow the steps in the table below to determine inadmissibility.
Determine whether foreign national claimed to be a U.S. citizen.
Determine whether foreign national made the representation on or after September 30, 1996.
Determine whether the representation was false.
Determine whether foreign national’s false claim to U.S. citizenship was for the purpose of obtaining a benefit under the INA or under any other federal or state law.
Determine whether foreign national timely retracted the false claim to U.S. citizenship.
Determine whether a waiver of inadmissibility is available.
An officer should first determine whether a foreign national claimed to be a U.S. citizen.
A foreign national may claim to be a U.S. citizen in oral interviews, written applications, or by submitting evidence. It is irrelevant whether or not the foreign national made the claim under oath.
A foreign national who falsely claims to be a U.S. national but not a U.S. citizen is not inadmissible for false claim to U.S. citizenship.  The foreign national, however, may be inadmissible for fraud or willful misrepresentation if all other elements for that ground are met.
​In these cases, the applicant must demonstrate to an officer that he or she understands the distinction between a U.S. citizen and non-U.S. citizen national.  The applicant has the burden of showing that he or she was claiming to be a non-U.S. citizen national as opposed to a U.S. citizen. The applicant’s inadmissibility for a false claim to U.S. citizenship depends on whether the applicant meets the burden of showing that he or she intended to claim to be a U.S. national when completing the Form I-9.
If an applicant claimed to be a U.S. citizen on or after September 30, 1996, then an officer should determine whether the claim was false and whether the applicant knew the claim was false.
A false representation or misrepresentation is an assertion or manifestation that is not in accordance with the true facts.
Knowledge that the claim was false, however, is not an element that the government must prove. As long as there is some evidence in the record that reasonably calls the foreign national’s admissibility into question, the foreign national has the burden to prove the foreign national is not inadmissible.
The foreign national’s assertion that he or she did not know the claim to citizenship was false is therefore a defense. The foreign national must establish clearly and beyond a doubt that he or she did not know the claim was false. The foreign national’s lack of knowledge about the claim being false is an individualized inquiry and depends on the unique circumstances of each particular case.
Inherent in the knowledge requirement is that the foreign national has the capacity for such knowledge. An officer cannot make a finding of inadmissibility for false claim to U.S. citizenship if the foreign national lacks the capacity to knowingly make a false claim to U.S. citizenship.
An officer should not find that a foreign national lacks capacity simply because the foreign national does not know that a false claim to U.S. citizenship makes him or her inadmissible. An officer should find a lack of capacity only if the evidence shows that the foreign national was incapable of understanding the nature and consequences of the false claim at the time of the alleged false claim.
A lack of capacity claim may arise most often in the case of a foreign national who made a false claim to U.S. citizenship while under the age of 18. The fact that the foreign national was not yet 18 years of age is insufficient by itself to establish a lack of capacity.
A capacity assessment, in this instance, relies on determining whether the foreign national who made the false claim while under age 18 had the maturity and the judgment to understand and appreciate the nature and consequences of his or her actions at the time the false claim was made.
The foreign national may establish that he or she did not have the capacity to judge the nature and consequences of a false citizenship claim due to age or cognitive impairment. The foreign national must establish the lack of capacity clearly and beyond doubt. The foreign national’s capacity for knowledge is an individualized inquiry, and it depends on the unique circumstances of each particular case.
The provision for inadmissibility based on false claim to U.S. citizenship  uses “or” rather than “and” as the conjunction between “purpose” and “benefit.” There may be cases in which the facts show that the foreign national intended to achieve both a purpose and obtain a benefit. However, a foreign national can also be inadmissible based on a false claim made with the specific intent to achieve an improper purpose, even if it did not involve an application for any specific benefit.
U.S. citizenship affects or matters to the purpose or benefit sought, that is, it must be material to obtaining the benefit or achieving the purpose.
Whether U.S. citizenship actually affects or matters to the benefit sought is determined objectively. If the benefit requires U.S. citizenship as part of eligibility, then the foreign national’s false claim is material.  If the claim to citizenship has a natural tendency to influence the official decision to grant or deny the benefit sought, the claim is material.  It is the foreign national’s burden to show that U.S. citizenship is not relevant to obtaining the benefit.
If U.S. citizenship is irrelevant to the benefit at issue, the foreign national’s false claim to U.S. citizenship does not make him or her inadmissible unless the evidence provides a basis for finding that the foreign national made the false claim to achieve a purpose under federal or state law.
For purposes of a false claim to U.S. citizenship,  a benefit must be identifiable and enumerated in the INA or any other federal or state law.
Whether U.S. citizenship actually affects or matters to the purpose is determined objectively. U.S. citizenship affects or matters to the purpose, and is material, if it has a natural tendency to influence the applicant’s ability to achieve the purpose.  It is the foreign national’s burden to show that U.S. citizenship is not relevant to achieving the purpose.
If U.S. citizenship is irrelevant to achieving the purpose at issue, the foreign national’s false claim to U.S. citizenship does not make him or her inadmissible unless the evidence provides a basis for finding that the foreign national made the false claim to obtain a benefit under federal or state law.
Purpose, however, is not limited to avoiding negative legal consequences. The purpose may also be something more positive. For example, a false claim would be for an improper purpose if a benefit under federal or state law is not restricted to U.S. citizens, but a foreign national falsely claims to be a U.S. citizen when seeking the benefit to avoid an eligibility or evidentiary requirement that does not apply to citizens seeking the benefit.
A foreign national who comes into the United States based on a false claim to U.S. nationality is not inadmissible under the provision relating to false claims to citizenship.  However, the person may be inadmissible as a foreign national who is in the United States without inspection and admission or parole.
​Case law relating to the inadmissibility ground for fraud or willful misrepresentation has long recognized that a foreign national is not inadmissible if he or she made a timely retraction of the fraud or misrepresentation.  If a foreign national timely retracts the statement, it acts as a defense to the inadmissibility ground. A USCIS officer would then decide the case as if the fraud or misrepresentation had never happened.
In principle, a foreign national might also timely retract a false claim to U.S. citizenship. If the foreign national does so, he or she would not be inadmissible for this inadmissibility ground. The retraction has to be voluntary and timely in order to be effective.  The applicant must correct the representation before an officer or U.S. government official challenges the applicant’s truthfulness and before the conclusion of the proceeding during which the applicant gave false testimony. A retraction can be voluntary and timely if made in response to an officer’s question during which the officer gives the applicant a chance to explain or correct a potential misrepresentation.
​Further, a retraction or recantation of a false claim to U.S. citizenship is only timely if the foreign national makes it in the same proceeding in which he or she made the false claim. For example, disclosing in an adjustment application that one falsely claimed to be a citizen in completing a Form I-9, registering to vote, or seeking any other benefit would not be a timely retraction. The false claim was complete when the foreign national submitted the Form I-9, registered to vote, or sought the other benefit. The disclosure of the false claim on the adjustment of status application, therefore, would be part of a different proceeding.
1. [^] Falsely represented includes whether the applicant misrepresented the fact that the applicant is a citizen of the United States with the knowledge that the representation is not true.
2. [^] See INA 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(II).
3. [^] See INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i).
4. [^] For example, the foreign national could make a false claim to U.S. citizenship to comply with the employment verification requirements under INA 274A.
5. [^] See INA 101(a)(22).
6. [^] See INA 308. As of 2014, American Samoa (including Swains Island) is the only outlying possession of the United States, as defined under INA 101(a)(29). See Volume 12, Citizenship and Naturalization [12 USCIS-PM].
7. [^] See U.S. Constitution, amend. XIV. See INA 301. See INA 309. See Volume 12, Citizenship and Naturalization [12 USCIS-PM].
8. [^] See INA 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I).
9. [^] For example, if the false claim to U.S. nationality was made to a U.S. government official in seeking an immigration benefit. See INA 212(a)(6)(C). See Part J, Fraud and Willful Misrepresentation [8 USCIS-PM J].
10. [^] In Ateka v. Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 954 (8th Cir. 2004) and in Rodriguez v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 773 (8th Cir. 2008), the applicants specifically testified that they claimed to be citizens when checking the particular box on Form I-9. Based on this testimony, the court determined that the applicants were inadmissible on account of falsely claiming U.S. citizenship. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) non-precedent decisions seem to draw on this distinction. See Matter of Oduor, 2005 WL 1104203 (BIA 2005). See Matter of Soriano-Salas, 2007 WL 2074526 (BIA 2007).
11. [^] See U.S. v. Karaouni, 379 F.3d 139 (9th Cir. 2004).
12. [^] In Ateka v. Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 954 (8th Cir. 2004), Matter of Oduor, 2005 WL 1104203 (BIA 2005), and Matter of Soriano-Salas, 2007 WL 2074526 (BIA, June 5, 2007), for example, the evidence showed that the applicant had no idea what it meant to be a non-citizen national and that the applicant intended to claim that the applicant was a citizen.
13. [^] INA 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) makes a foreign national subject to removal as inadmissible. INA 237(a)(3)(D)(i) is identical but applies to a foreign national who has been admitted but has become removable on account of the false representation. Also, if a foreign national falsely claims citizenship by voting, that foreign national would also be inadmissible under INA 212(a)(10)(D), which declares a foreign national inadmissible who votes in violation of any federal, state, or local law.
14. [^] The date this inadmissibility ground became effective. See Section 344(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), Pub. L. 104-208 (September 30, 1996).
15. [^] See INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i). For more information on inadmissibility based on fraud and willful misrepresentation, see Part J, Fraud and Willful Misrepresentation [8 USCIS-PM J].
16. [^] See Chapter 1, Purpose and Background, Section B, Background [8 USCIS-PM K.1(B)].
17. [^] See 9 FAM 302.9-5, Falsely Claiming Citizenship - INA 212(a)(6)(C)(ii).
18. [^] For more information, see Part J, Fraud and Willful Misrepresentation, Chapter 3, Adjudicating Inadmissibility, Section D, Willfulness [8 USCIS-PM J.3(D)].
20. [^] See INA 212(a)(6)(C)(ii).
21. [^] See INA 212(a)(6)(C)(ii).
22. [^] For more information on materiality, see Part J, Fraud and Willful Misrepresentation, Chapter 3, Adjudicating Inadmissibility, Section E, Materiality [8 USCIS-PM J.3(E)].
23. [^] See Matter of Richmond, 26 I&N Dec. 779, 787-88 (BIA 2016).
24. [^] See Matter of Richmond, 26 I&N Dec. 779, 786-787 (BIA 2016). See Crocock v. Holder, 670 F.3d 400 (2nd Cir. 2012).
25. [^] See Kungys​ v. United States​, 485 U.S. 759, 770 (1988).
26. [^] See Kungys​ v. United States​, 485 U.S. 759, 770 (1988). A false claim has a natural tendency to influence the official decision to grant or deny the benefit if the person would not obtain the benefit on the true facts, or if the false claim tends to cut off a line of inquiry, which is relevant to the eligibility and which might have resulted in a proper determination that the foreign national is not eligible for the benefit.
27. [^] See INA 212(a)(6)(C)(ii).
28. [^] See Matter of Barcenas-Barrera (PDF), 25 I&N Dec. 40 (BIA 2009). See Matter of Villanueva (PDF), 19 I&N Dec. 101, 103 (BIA 1984).
29. [^] See Matter of Barcenas-Barrera (PDF), 25 I&N Dec. 40 (BIA 2009). See Jamieson v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 765 (8th Cir. 2005). See Reid v. INS, 420 U.S. 619 (1975).
30. [^] See Dakura v. Holder, 772 F.3d 994 (4th Cir. 2014). See Crocock v. Holder, 670 F.3d 400, 403 (2nd Cir. 2012). See Castro v. Att'y Gen. of U.S., 671 F.3d 356, 368 (3rd Cir. 2012). See Rodriguez v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 773 (8th Cir. 2008). See Kechkar v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 1080 (10th Cir. 2007). See Theodros v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 396 (5th Cir. 2007). See Matter of Bett (PDF), 26 I&N Dec. 437 (BIA 2014).
31. [^] See Matter of Richmond, 26 I&N Dec. 779, 786-787 (BIA 2016). See Crocock v. Holder, 670 F.3d 400 (2nd Cir. 2012).
32. [^] See Kungys​ v. United States​, 485 U.S. 759, 770 (1988). A false claim has a natural tendency to influence the official decision to grant or deny the benefit if the person would not obtain the benefit on the true facts, or if the false claim tends to cut off a line of inquiry, which is relevant to the eligibility and which might have resulted in a proper determination that the foreign national is not eligible for the benefit.
33. [^] See Matter of Richmond, 26 I&N Dec. 779 (BIA 2016).
34. [^] See Matter of Pinzon (PDF), 26 I&N Dec. 189 (BIA 2013). See Matter of F- (PDF), 9 I&N Dec. 54 (BIA 1960).
35. [^] See Kechkar v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 1080 (10th Cir. 2007).
36. [^] See Castro v. Attorney Gen. of U.S., 671 F.3d 356, 368 (3rd Cir. 2012). According to the court, the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) and the BIA conclusion that Castro made a false claim of U.S. citizenship for the purpose of evading detection by immigration authorities seemed to have been built solely on the assumption that this was a reasonable purpose to ascribe to Castro because he was undocumented. Therefore, the court decided that the BIA and the IJ erred in coming to this conclusion. The purpose imputed by the BIA to Castro would have applied to virtually any false claim to citizenship made by a foreign national unlawfully present in the country because the absence of legal status always provides a reason to wish to avoid the attention of DHS. Therefore, the construction threatened to read the limiting language—the requirement that the “purpose or benefit” be “under” the INA or any other federal or state law—out of INA 212(a)(6)(C)(ii) entirely.
37. [^] See Matter of Richmond, 26 I&N Dec. 779 (BIA 2016).
38. [^] See Matter of Bett (PDF), 26 I&N Dec. 437 (BIA 2014).
39. [^] This conclusion is consistent with the rationale of Matter of Richmond, 26 I&N Dec. 779 (BIA 2016).
40. [^] See Department of State Cable (no. 97-State-174342) (September 17, 1997). However, falsely claiming citizenship on behalf of another foreign national may make the foreign national inadmissible for alien smuggling. See Matter of M-R, 6 I&N Dec. 259, 260 (BIA 1954).
41. [^] See Matter of Quilantan (PDF), 25 I&N Dec. 285 (BIA 2010). See Volume 7, Adjustment of Status, Part B, 245(a) Adjustment, Chapter 2, Eligibility Requirements, Section A, “Inspected and Admitted” or “Inspected and Paroled” [7 USCIS-PM B.2(A)(2)].
42. [^] See Reid v. INS, 420 U.S. 619 (1975). See Matter of Pinzon (PDF), 26 I&N Dec. 189 (BIA 2013). See Mattter of S-, 9 I&N Dec. 599 (PDF) (BIA 1962).
43. [^] Similarly, a lawful permanent resident (LPR) returning from a temporary trip abroad is not considered to be seeking admission or readmission to the United States unless of one of the factors in INA 101(a)(13)(C) is present. See Matter of Collado-Munoz (PDF), 21 I&N Dec. 1061 (BIA 1998). Because the returning LPR is not an arriving alien who is an applicant for admission unless one of the factors in INA 101(a)(13)(C) is present, the foreign national is not inspected as an arriving alien. If the foreign national makes a false claim to LPR status at a port-of-entry and if the foreign national is permitted to enter, then the foreign national has not been admitted for purposes of INA 101(a)(13)(A).
44. [^] See INA 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I).
45. [^] For more information, see Section D, Knowledge that Claim Was False, Subsection 4, Lack of Capacity [8 USCIS-PM K.2(D)(4)].
46. [^] See Matter of R-R-, 3 I&N Dec. 823 (BIA 1949). See Matter of M-, 9 I&N Dec. 118 (PDF) (BIA 1960) (also cited by Matter of R-S-J- (PDF), 22 I&N Dec. 863 (BIA 1999)). See 9 FAM 302.9-4(B)(3)(f), Timely Retraction.
47. [^] “If the witness withdraws the false testimony of his own volition and without delay, the false statement and its withdrawal may be found to constitute one inseparable incident out of which an intention to deceive cannot rightly be drawn.” See Llanos-Senarrilos v. United States, 177 F.2d 164, 165 (9th Cir. 1949). See Matter of R-R-, 3 I&N Dec. 823 (BIA 1949). See Matter of Namio (PDF), 14 I&N Dec. 412 (BIA 1973), referring to Matter of M-, 9 I&N Dec. 118 (PDF) (BIA 1960) and Llanos-Senarrilos v. United States, 177 F.2d 164 (9th Cir. 1949).
48. [^] See Matter of Namio (PDF), 14 I&N Dec. 412 (BIA 1973).
49. [^] See Matter of Namio (PDF), 14 I&N Dec. 412 (BIA 1973).
50. [^] See Llanos-Senarrilos v. United States, 177 F.2d 164, 165 (9th Cir. 1949).
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is issuing guidance to address the false claim to U.S. citizenship ground of inadmissibility under section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.