Opinion ID: 178250
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Citizenship Claim

Text: There is no dispute that when Valadez tried to enter the country with his fiancée, he knew that he was not legally entitled to do so, but presented Robert Moreno's birth certificate so that he could enter without difficulty. Of course, he had previously assumed Moreno's identity in order to obtain a driver license and, thus, obtain work in the United States. He saw use of the birth certificate as a means of obtaining entry into the United States when he had no other means available. The evidence of his claim of citizenship is not quite as strong as it would have been if Valadez had actually signed a statement admitting that he had falsely claimed citizenship, [3] or pled guilty to the crime of so doing. [4] Nevertheless, it cannot be said that the BIA's determination that Valadez intended to and did make a false claim of United States citizenship at that time was so unfounded that no reasonable factfinder could so determine. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 481, 112 S.Ct. at 815. Indeed, in this civil proceeding we are almost asked to take a flight of fancy when we are asked to believe that Valadez was not asserting citizenship at that time. [5] We are not that gormless about life in the real world. That would seem to be an end to Valadez's claim, but, he correctly asserts, we have taken a somewhat different approach in a series of cases dealing with prosecutions [6] for violating a criminal statute. [7] The cases upon which Valadez relies are largely distinguishable on their facts. In Karaouni, 379 F.3d at 1141, 1143, for example, the actual defect was that Karaouni only stated that he was a `citizen or national of the United States,' and, therefore, did not state that he was a citizen. And in Smiley, 181 F.2d at 506, the defendant once stated that he was a citizen, but did not say of which country. We found that to be insufficient. Another time, Smiley told a police officer that he was born in New York, but in circumstances where citizenship may well have been the farthest thing from his mind. Id. That, too, was insufficient. On the other hand, Garcia, 739 F.2d at 443, applied Smiley in quite different circumstancesa statement in this country to a border patrol agent. That case would have more force in our consideration of this case were Garcia not a criminal prosecution. That, however, leads to the most salient and determinative distinguishing mark. The strongest riposte to Valadez's thrust is the very fact that the cases cited were criminal prosecutions where the defendant had to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and we, therefore, were very concerned about the quality of the evidence. [8] Here, on the other hand, the burden of persuasion is reversed for, again, the alien has the burden of proving that he is not inadmissible clearly and beyond doubt. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(2)(A). That makes all the difference in the world. Valadez was required to clearly show that he was not inadmissible, and he did not offset the strong inference that his activities at the border constituted a claim of United States citizenship. In fine, the BIA did not improperly determine that Valadez had falsely represented himself ... to be a citizen of the United States. Id. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I).