Opinion ID: 1036585
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: FFCA Claim

Text: Hernandez argues that the IJ violated the Full Faith and Credit Act by making findings inconsistent with the state court grand jury’s “no bill.” The FFCA provides that “records and judicial proceedings of any court of any such State . . . shall be proved or admitted in other courts within the United States . . . [and] shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States” as in the courts of that State. 28 U.S.C. § 1738. Under the FFCA, a federal court generally must give a state court judgment “the same effect that it 4 While we have jurisdiction to review constitutional issues and questions of law as to the denial of Hernandez’s request for adjustment of status, we do not have jurisdiction to review the IJ’s underlying fact findings. See Jean-Pierre v. U.S Att’y Gen., 500 F.3d 1315, 1322 (11th Cir. 2007) (reviewing whether undisputed facts met the legal standard for torture). Thus, to the extent Hernandez challenges the IJ’s adverse credibility finding or the factual determination that Hernandez signed the I-9 Form using the name Filiberto Alvarado and represented himself to be a U.S. citizen to obtain employment at Alatrade, those findings are not reviewable. 11 Case: 12-14801 Date Filed: 08/06/2013 Page: 12 of 14 would have in the courts of the State in which it was rendered.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Epstein, 516 U.S. 367, 369, 116 S. Ct. 873, 876 (1996). To determine the preclusive effect of a state court judgment in a subsequent federal action, we look to the preclusion rules of the state. Marrese v. Am. Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 470 U.S. 373, 380, 105 S. Ct. 1327, 1331-32 (1985). The BIA has applied the FFCA in immigration proceedings. Specifically, in cases where the basis for removability is a criminal conviction, the BIA gives full faith and credit to a state court judgment showing that the alien’s conviction has been vacated. See In re Rodriguez-Ruiz, 22 I.&N. Dec. 1378, 1380 (BIA 2000) (involving charge of removability as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony). This Court has concluded, however, that when the basis for removability is the underlying conduct rather than the criminal conviction itself, the underlying facts can still support a finding of removability even if the conviction is vacated so long as “they are established by reasonable, substantial and probative evidence.” Garces v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 611 F.3d 1337, 1347 (11th Cir. 2010) (involving charge of removability as an alien whom the Attorney General “knows or has reason to believe” is a drug trafficker). Here, as in Garces, the grounds for removability did not hinge on the existence of a criminal conviction. Rather, the government needed to prove only that Hernandez falsely claimed he was a U.S. citizen on an I-9 Form, whether or 12 Case: 12-14801 Date Filed: 08/06/2013 Page: 13 of 14 not that conduct led to a criminal conviction. Thus, the underlying facts that led to Hernandez’s now-dismissed criminal charges can also support a finding of removability if they were properly proved by the government. See Garces, 611 F.3d at 1347. Moreover, Hernandez, not the government, bore the burden of establishing his eligibility for adjustment of status “clearly and beyond doubt.” See INA §§ 240(c)(2)(A), (4)(A), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229a(c)(2)(A), (4)(A). In any event, there is nothing to suggest that the BIA did not give the “no bill” the same effect that an Alabama court would give it. Hernandez did not cite any Alabama law indicating that the state court’s dismissal of the forgery charges based on the grand jury’s return of a “no bill” would bar any future civil litigation, much less litigation on the issue of whether Hernandez made a false claim of U.S. citizenship by signing the I-9 Form. Our own research suggests otherwise. See Ex Parte State Alcoholic Beverage Control Bd., 654 So. 2d 1149, 1152-53 (Ala. 1994) (concluding that the dismissal of criminal charges did not preclude a subsequent state administrative proceeding); M.L.E. v. K.B. ex rel. A.B., 794 So. 2d 1143, 1147 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000) (concluding that an acquittal did not preclude a subsequent civil action). Additionally, contrary to Hernandez’s claims, the state court documents do not show why the grand jury declined to indict him, what evidence the grand jury examined before making its decision, or even if the dismissed forgery charges were 13 Case: 12-14801 Date Filed: 08/06/2013 Page: 14 of 14 based on Hernandez’s alleged signing of the I-9 Form in the name of Filiberto Alvarado. The state court documents show only that an Alabama grand jury declined to indict Hernandez on forgery charges. Under these circumstances, the IJ’s fact findings did not violate the FFCA. 5 PETITION DENIED. 5 There is no merit to Hernandez’s claim that the state court documents were not considered. The parties discussed the documents during Hernandez’s hearings and in their briefs filed with the IJ. Although the IJ did not mention them in his oral decision, the IJ is not required to discuss explicitly every piece of evidence an alien presents. See Ayala v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 941, 948 (11th Cir. 2010). Further, the BIA took administrative notice of the state court documents and explicitly addressed them, but concluded that they had little probative weight because they did not indicate the basis for the grand jury’s “no bill.” See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(iv) (permitting BIA to take administrative notice of the contents of official documents). 14