Matter of Keon Richmond

Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 779 (BIA 2016) Interim Decision #3867

引用为 26 I&N Dec. 779 (BIA 2016) 临时决定 #3867

U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review

美国司法部 移民审查执行办公室

Board of Immigration Appeals

移民上诉委员会

(1) A false claim to United States citizenship falls within the scope of section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) (2012), where there is direct or circumstantial evidence that the false claim was made with the subjective intent of obtaining a purpose or benefit under the Act or any other Federal or State law, and where United States citizenship actually affects or matters to the purpose or benefit sought. (2) There is a distinction between achieving a “purpose” and obtaining a “benefit” under section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) of the Act. (3) Avoiding removal proceedings qualifies as a “purpose” within the meaning of section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) of the Act. FOR RESPONDENT: Ryan Muennich, Esquire, New York, New York FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Sue Chen, Senior Attorney BEFORE: Board Panel: COLE, GUENDELSBERGER, and MALPHRUS, Board Members. COLE, Board Member:

(1) 虚假声称美国公民身份属于《移民与国籍法》第212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I)条、8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) (2012) 的范围，如果有直接或间接证据表明该虚假声称是出于获取该法或任何其他联邦或州法律下的目的或利益的主观意图，并且美国公民身份实际影响或关乎所寻求的目的或利益。 (2) 根据该法第212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I)条，实现“目的”与获得“利益”之间存在区别。 (3) 避免驱逐程序属于该法第212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I)条含义内的“目的”。 被申请人代表：Ryan Muennich 律师，纽约州纽约市 国土安全部代表：Sue Chen 高级律师 审理：委员会小组：COLE、GUENDELSBERGER 和 MALPHRUS 委员会成员。 COLE 委员会成员：

This case is before us on remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for further consideration of the respondent’s inadmissibility under section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) (2012), and his eligibility for adjustment of status under section 245(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) (2012). Richmond v. Holder, 714 F.3d 725 (2d Cir. 2013). The respondent’s appeal will be dismissed.

本案因美国第二巡回上诉法院发回重审而由我们审理，以进一步考虑被申请人根据《移民与国籍法》第212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I)条、8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) (2012) 的不可入境性，以及其根据该法第245(a)条、8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) (2012) 的调整身份资格。Richmond v. Holder, 714 F.3d 725 (2d Cir. 2013)。被申请人的上诉将被驳回。

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The respondent is a native and citizen of Trinidad and Tobago who was admitted to the United States on May 3, 2001, as a nonimmigrant visitor. He was convicted on May 3, 2005, of assault in the second degree under

I. 事实与程序历史 被申请人是特立尼达和多巴哥的国民和公民，于2001年5月3日作为非移民访问者被准许进入美国。他于2005年5月3日根据《纽约刑法》第120.05(3)条被判二级攻击罪成立。

779

779

Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 779 (BIA 2016) Interim Decision #3867

引用为 26 I&N Dec. 779 (BIA 2016) 临时决定 #3867

section 120.05(3) of the New York Penal Law. This conviction was overturned by the New York State Appellate Division on January 17, 2007.

《纽约刑法》第120.05(3)条。该定罪于2007年1月17日被纽约州上诉庭撤销。

The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) initiated removal proceedings on January 5, 2007, charging that the respondent is removable as a nonimmigrant who overstayed his visa and an alien convicted of an aggravated felony under sections 237(a)(1)(B) and (2)(A)(iii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1227(a)(1)(B) and (2)(A)(iii) (2006). In a hearing before the Immigration Judge on March 13, 2007, the respondent conceded that he was removable for overstaying his visa, denied the aggravated felony charge, and sought adjustment of status based on an approved immigrant visa petition filed by his United States citizen spouse.

国土安全部（“DHS”）于2007年1月5日启动驱逐程序，指控被申请人作为逾期居留签证的非移民以及根据该法第237(a)(1)(B)和(2)(A)(iii)条、8 U.S.C. §§ 1227(a)(1)(B)和(2)(A)(iii) (2006) 被判重罪的外国人而可被驱逐。在2007年3月13日移民法官面前的听证中，被申请人承认因逾期居留签证而可被驱逐，否认重罪指控，并寻求基于其美国公民配偶提交的已批准移民签证申请而调整身份。

The DHS argued that the respondent was ineligible for adjustment of status because he was inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) of the Act based on his prior false claim to United States citizenship.1 The DHS submitted evidence that in 2005, the respondent was interviewed by two DHS officers on two separate occasions while in State custody and that, during both interviews, the respondent swore that he was a United States citizen, having been born in Brooklyn, New York.2

DHS 主张被申请人不符合调整身份的资格，因为根据该法第212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I)条，基于其先前虚假声称美国公民身份，他不可入境。1 DHS 提交证据表明，2005年，被申请人在州羁押期间两次分别接受两名 DHS 官员的询问，并且在两次询问中，被申请人都宣誓他是美国公民，出生于纽约布鲁克林。2

The respondent admitted that he was interviewed by DHS officers but testified that he had no idea why he was being interviewed. In this regard, the respondent also testified that he had no fear of being deported because his mother had told him he was a United States citizen. Although the respondent admitted that he used a Trinidadian passport to enter the United States, he claimed that he could not read at that time and therefore did not know that the passport was issued by Trinidad and Tobago.

被申请人承认接受了 DHS 官员的询问，但作证说他不知道为何被询问。在这方面，被申请人还作证说他不害怕被驱逐，因为他母亲告诉他他是美国公民。尽管被申请人承认他使用特立尼达护照进入美国，但他声称当时不识字，因此不知道护照是由特立尼达和多巴哥签发的。

The Immigration Judge sustained the overstay charge of removability under section 237(a)(1)(B) of the Act but determined that the DHS had not established the respondent’s removability under section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) for conviction of an aggravated felony. The Immigration Judge also found the respondent ineligible for adjustment of status because he determined that the false claims to United States citizenship he made to the DHS officers were to obtain a “benefit” pursuant to section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) of

移民法官维持了根据该法第237(a)(1)(B)条的逾期居留可驱逐指控，但认定 DHS 未确立被申请人根据第237(a)(2)(A)(iii)条因重罪定罪而可被驱逐。移民法官还认定被申请人不符合调整身份的资格，因为他认定被申请人向 DHS 官员作出的虚假美国公民身份声称是为了根据该法第212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I)条获得“利益”。

1 Section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) of the Act provides as follows:

1 该法第212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I)条规定如下：

Any alien who falsely represents, or has falsely represented, himself or herself to be a citizen of the United States for any purpose or benefit under this Act (including section 274A) or any other Federal or State law is inadmissible. (Emphasis added.) 2 The DHS obtained a copy of the respondent’s Trinidadian passport and birth certificate, and the respondent was indicted for making a false claim to United States citizenship in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 911 (2000). These charges were later dismissed.

任何外国人，为根据本法（包括第274A条）或任何其他联邦或州法律下的任何目的或利益，虚假陈述或曾虚假陈述自己是美国公民，均不可入境。 （强调添加。） 2 DHS 获得了被申请人特立尼达护照和出生证明的副本，且被申请人因违反18 U.S.C. § 911 (2000) 虚假声称美国公民身份而被起诉。这些指控后来被驳回。

780

780

Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 779 (BIA 2016) Interim Decision #3867

引用为 26 I&N Dec. 779 (BIA 2016) 临时决定 #3867

the Act. According to the Immigration Judge, the false claim “completely exempt[ed] the respondent from further scrutiny or investigation by Immigration Officers and would of course be the complete defense to any Immigration related proceedings seeking to remove the respondent from the United States.” The Immigration Judge also did not find the respondent’s claim that he believed he was a United States citizen to be credible in light of the circumstances of his admission to the United States, contradictory information in a presentence report, and the lack of corroborating testimony from his mother.3 The Immigration Judge therefore ordered the respondent removed to Trinidad and Tobago.

根据移民法官的说法，该虚假声称“完全使被申请人免于移民官员的进一步审查或调查，并且当然会成为任何寻求将被申请人驱逐出美国的移民相关程序的完全抗辩。”移民法官还认为，鉴于被申请人进入美国的情况、量刑前报告中的矛盾信息以及缺乏其母亲的佐证证词，被申请人关于他相信自己美国公民身份的主张不可信。3 因此，移民法官下令将被申请人驱逐至特立尼达和多巴哥。

The respondent appealed. We dismissed his appeal, affirming the Immigration Judge’s finding that the respondent is ineligible for adjustment of status. We found no clear error in the Immigration Judge’s adverse credibility finding as to the respondent’s claim that he had a good faith belief that he was a United States citizen. We held that the respondent’s false claim to citizenship to avoid being placed in removal proceedings had been made for a “purpose or benefit” under the Act and rendered him inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I). 4 The respondent filed a petition for review of our decision with the Second Circuit, and on April 30, 2013, the court vacated our decision and remanded the proceedings for us to provide an authoritative analysis of section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I). Richmond, 714 F.3d at 729−31.5

被申请人提出上诉。我们驳回了他的上诉，确认移民法官关于被申请人不符合调整身份资格的认定。我们认定移民法官关于被申请人声称他善意相信自己美国公民身份的可信度不利认定没有明显错误。我们裁定，被申请人为避免被置于驱逐程序而虚假声称公民身份是为了该法下的“目的或利益”，并根据第212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I)条使其不可入境。4 被申请人向第二巡回法院提交了复审我们决定的请愿书，2013年4月30日，法院撤销了我们的决定并将程序发回，要求我们对第212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I)条提供权威分析。Richmond, 714 F.3d at 729−31.5

II. ISSUES

II. 问题

In this decision, we will (1) interpret the meaning and scope of the phrase “for any purpose or benefit under this Act . . . or any other Federal

在本决定中，我们将 (1) 解释“为根据本法……或任何其他联邦

3 The Immigration Judge also denied the respondent’s motion to suppress the statements that he had provided to the DHS officers during his interviews while in State custody. 4 To qualify for adjustment of status, an alien must demonstrate that he is “admissible to the United States for permanent residence.” Section 245(a)(2) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(d) (2016) (“The respondent shall have the burden of establishing that he or she is eligible for any requested benefit or privilege . . . .”). “Because applicants for adjustment of status are ‘assimilated to the position’ of aliens seeking entry into this country, such aliens must show that they are ‘clearly and beyond doubt’ [not inadmissible].” Crocock v. Holder, 670 F.3d 400, 403 (2d Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (citations omitted). 5 The Second Circuit affirmed the Immigration Judge’s finding that the respondent’s claim that he believed he was a United States citizen when he made his statements to the DHS was not credible. Richmond, 714 F.3d at 729. In his petition for review, the respondent did not contest the denial of his motion to suppress the statements he made to the DHS officers. Id. at 728 n.2. This issue is therefore not before us.

3 移民法官还驳回了被申请人要求排除其在州羁押期间接受 DHS 官员询问时所作陈述的动议。 4 要符合调整身份的资格，外国人必须证明他“可被准许进入美国永久居留”。该法第245(a)(2)条；8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(d) (2016)（“被申请人应承担证明其符合任何请求的利益或特权资格的责任……”）。“因为调整身份申请人被‘同化到寻求进入本国的外国人的地位’，此类外国人必须表明他们‘清楚且毫无疑问地’[不可入境]。”Crocock v. Holder, 670 F.3d 400, 403 (2d Cir. 2012)（per curiam）（引文省略）。 5 第二巡回法院确认了移民法官的认定，即被申请人关于他在向 DHS 作出陈述时相信自己美国公民身份的主张不可信。Richmond, 714 F.3d at 729。在其复审请愿书中，被申请人未对驳回其要求排除向 DHS 官员所作陈述的动议提出异议。Id. at 728 n.2。因此，该问题不在我们面前。

781

781

Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 779 (BIA 2016) Interim Decision #3867

引用为 26 I&N Dec. 779 (BIA 2016) 临时决定 #3867

or State law” under section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) of the Act; (2) decide if there is a distinction in this provision between achieving a “purpose” and obtaining a “benefit”; and (3) determine whether avoiding removal proceedings qualifies as such a “purpose” or a “benefit.”

或州法律”这一短语在该法第212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I)条下的含义和范围；(2) 判断该条款中实现“目的”与获得“利益”之间是否存在区别；以及 (3) 确定避免驱逐程序是否属于此类“目的”或“利益”。

III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES The respondent argues that the plain language of the statutory phrase “for any purpose or benefit under this Act . . . or any other Federal or State law” in section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) of the Act was intended to encompass only those false claims to United States citizenship made to obtain or achieve “identifiable” purposes or benefits enumerated in the Act, or any other Federal or State law, such as obtaining a passport, a Federal student loan, or employment. He contends that avoiding a negative legal consequence—such as removal proceedings—is not enumerated in the Act and is therefore not a cognizable “purpose or benefit.” He also argues that to hold otherwise would render the phrase “purpose or benefit” in section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) of the Act mere surplusage because all false claims to citizenship carry with them the benefit of avoiding potential removal proceedings.

III. 双方立场 被申请人主张，该法第212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I)条中“为根据本法……或任何其他联邦或州法律下的任何目的或利益”这一法定短语的平文含义仅旨在涵盖那些为获得或实现该法或任何其他联邦或州法律中列举的“可识别”目的或利益（例如获得护照、联邦学生贷款或就业）而作出的虚假美国公民身份声称。他争辩说，避免负面法律后果——例如驱逐程序——并未在该法中列举，因此不是可承认的“目的或利益”。他还主张，否则将使得该法第212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I)条中的“目的或利益”短语成为多余，因为所有虚假公民身份声称都带有避免潜在驱逐程序的利益。

In addition, the respondent asserts that a false claim to citizenship need not be material to the “purpose or benefit” being sought. Even assuming that it must be material, the respondent contends that all false claims made to the DHS to avoid removal proceedings are immaterial because the DHS conducts independent investigations of citizenship claims. Finally, the respondent argues that a false claim must be made knowingly and with the subjective intent of achieving or obtaining a cognizable “purpose or benefit.”

此外，被申请人声称虚假公民身份声称不必对寻求的“目的或利益”具有实质性。即使假设必须具有实质性，被申请人争辩说，所有向 DHS 作出的为避免驱逐程序的虚假声称都是非实质性的，因为 DHS 会对公民身份声称进行独立调查。最后，被申请人主张，虚假声称必须是明知且具有实现或获得可承认的“目的或利益”的主观意图而作出的。

The DHS argues that section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) of the Act encompasses any false claim to citizenship that is made with the subjective intent to achieve a purpose or obtain a benefit “under [the] Act . . . or any other Federal or State law,” which requires that the purpose or benefit be actually governed by some law, and the false claim must objectively matter. In addition, the DHS views the phrase “purpose or benefit” as broadly encompassing not only false claims made to obtain “affirmative or positive benefits” under the Act and any other Federal or State law but also misrepresentations made to avoid negative legal consequences—including removal proceedings under the Act.

DHS 主张，该法第212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I)条涵盖任何具有实现“根据[该]法……或任何其他联邦或州法律”下的目的或获得利益的主观意图而作出的虚假公民身份声称，这要求该目的或利益实际受某种法律管辖，且虚假声称必须客观上有实质性。此外，DHS 认为“目的或利益”短语广泛涵盖不仅为获得该法及任何其他联邦或州法律下的“肯定或积极利益”而作出的虚假声称，还包括为避免负面法律后果——包括该法下的驱逐程序——而作出的虚假陈述。

782

782

Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 779 (BIA 2016) Interim Decision #3867

引用为 26 I&N Dec. 779 (BIA 2016) 临时决定 #3867

IV. ANALYSIS

IV. 分析

A. Statutory Language

A. 法定语言

In interpreting statutory language, we review whether it has a plain and unambiguous meaning by referring “to the [statutory] language itself, the specific context in which that language is used, and the broader context of the statute as a whole.” Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 341 (1997); see also K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291 (1988).

在解释法定语言时，我们通过参考“法律语言本身、该语言使用的特定语境以及整个法规的更广泛语境”来审查其是否具有清晰且无歧义的含义。Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 341 (1997)；另见 K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291 (1988)。

Section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) was added to the Act by section 344(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”), Division C of Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009-546, 3009-637. The amendment was proposed to address abuse in the employment verification process by aliens, as well as the fraud and abuse committed by illegal aliens to obtain public services and benefits that are limited to United States citizens. H.R. Rep. No. 104-828, at 199 (1996) (Conf. Rep.) (Joint Explanatory Statement), 1996 WL 563320, at *199; 142 Cong. Rec. 24,783 (1996); 142 Cong. Rec. 10,030 (1996); see also Castro v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 671 F.3d 356, 368−69 (3d Cir. 2012); Matter of Bett, 26 I&N Dec. 437, 442 (BIA 2014) (concluding that section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) of the Act “explicitly encompasses violations of section 274A” of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1324a (2012), which delineates the employment verification process).

第212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I)条由1996年《非法移民改革和移民责任法》（“IIRIRA”）第344(a)条增补至该法，该法为Pub. L. No. 104-208的C部分，110 Stat. 3009-546, 3009-637。该修正案旨在解决外国人滥用就业验证程序的问题，以及非法外国人获取仅限于美国公民的公共服务和福利所实施的欺诈和滥用行为。H.R. Rep. No. 104-828, at 199 (1996) (Conf. Rep.) (Joint Explanatory Statement), 1996 WL 563320, at *199；142 Cong. Rec. 24,783 (1996)；142 Cong. Rec. 10,030 (1996)；另见 Castro v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 671 F.3d 356, 368−69 (3d Cir. 2012)；Matter of Bett, 26 I&N Dec. 437, 442 (BIA 2014)（认定该法第212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I)条“明确涵盖违反该法第274A条”的行为，8 U.S.C. § 1324a (2012)，该条规定了就业验证程序）。

Section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) of the Act contains three components. An alien is inadmissible under this provision if he or she: (1) “falsely represents, or has falsely represented, himself or herself to be a citizen of the United States”; (2) “for any purpose or benefit”; (3) “under th[e] Act . . . or any other Federal or State law.”

该法第212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I)条包含三个组成部分。根据该规定，外国人如有以下情形则不可入境：(1)“虚假陈述或曾经虚假陈述自己为美国公民”；(2)“为任何目的或利益”；(3)“根据该法……或任何其他联邦或州法律”。

1. False Representation of Citizenship

1. 虚假陈述公民身份

The plain language of section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) of the Act that any alien who “falsely represents, or has falsely represented himself or herself to be a citizen of the United States,” encompasses any false claim to United States citizenship present or past, with one exception not applicable here. See 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(II) of the Act. Because the Second Circuit upheld the Immigration Judge’s adverse credibility finding, we need not reach the parties’ arguments relating to whether a false claim must be made knowingly to trigger inadmissibility under this provision.

该法第212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I)条的平实语言规定，任何外国人“虚假陈述或曾经虚假陈述自己为美国公民”，涵盖现在或过去的任何虚假美国公民身份主张，但有一项例外在此不适用。见该法第212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(II)条。由于第二巡回法院维持了移民法官的不利可信度认定，我们无需处理当事人关于虚假主张是否必须明知才能触发该规定下不可入境性的论点。

783

783

Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 779 (BIA 2016) Interim Decision #3867

引用为 26 I&N Dec. 779 (BIA 2016) 临时决定#3867

2. “For Any Purpose or Benefit” In Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759, 779−80 (1988), the Supreme Court interpreted the meaning of similar language under section 101(f)(6) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(6) (1988), within the context of a denaturalization provision, section 340(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a) (1988). Section 101(f)(6) of the Act attaches immigration consequences to “false testimony for the purpose of obtaining any benefits under th[e] Act.” The Supreme Court held in Kungys that the use of the phrase “for the purpose of obtaining any benefits under th[e] Act” requires giving false testimony “with the subjective intent of obtaining immigration or naturalization benefits.” Id. at 780.

2. “为任何目的或利益” 在Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759, 779−80 (1988)中，最高法院在剥夺国籍条款——该法第340(a)条，8 U.S.C. § 1451(a) (1988)——的语境下，解释了该法第101(f)(6)条，8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(6) (1988)中类似语言的含义。该法第101(f)(6)条将移民后果附加于“为获得该法下任何利益而作虚假证词”。最高法院在Kungys案中认定，使用“为获得该法下任何利益”一语要求作出虚假证词时“具有获得移民或归化利益的主观意图”。Id. at 780。

We adopt the Supreme Court’s interpretation in Kungys to find that an alien is inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) of the Act if he or she makes a false claim to United States citizenship with the “subjective intent” to obtain a “purpose or benefit” under the Act or any other Federal or State law. Whether the respondent’s false claim was made with a subjective intent is a question of fact to be determined by the Immigration Judge.

我们采纳最高法院在Kungys案中的解释，认定外国人如果以“主观意图”获得该法或任何其他联邦或州法律下的“目的或利益”而虚假主张美国公民身份，则根据该法第212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I)条不可入境。答辩人的虚假主张是否具有主观意图是由移民法官裁定的事实问题。

3. “Under th[e] Act . . . or any other Federal or State Law” In Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233, 244−45 (2010), the Supreme Court interpreted the phrase “specified under this subchapter” in section 242(a)(2)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) (2006), to mean “specified in” or “specified by” the particular subchapter of the Act at issue. The Court found that the word “under” in section 242(a)(2)(B) depends on other statutory provisions to define its scope. See id. at 245−46. Similarly, section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) is dependent on the statutory provisions of the Act or any other Federal or State law. Therefore, we interpret the phrase “under this Act . . . or any other Federal or State law” in section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) to mean that a false claim must be made to achieve a purpose or obtain a benefit that is governed by one of these laws. We also agree with the DHS and find that the presence of a “purpose or benefit” under section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) must be determined objectively.

3. “根据该法……或任何其他联邦或州法律” 在Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233, 244−45 (2010)中，最高法院将该法第242(a)(2)(B)条，8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) (2006)中的“本分章规定”一语解释为“规定于”或“由”该法所涉特定分章“规定”。法院认定第242(a)(2)(B)条中的“根据”一词依赖于其他法定条款来界定其范围。见Id. at 245−46。同样，第212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I)条依赖于该法或任何其他联邦或州法律的法定条款。因此，我们将第212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I)条中的“根据该法……或任何其他联邦或州法律”一语解释为：虚假主张必须是为实现由这些法律之一所管辖的目的或获得其利益而作出。我们也同意DHS的意见，并认定第212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I)条下“目的或利益”的存在必须客观确定。

B. Scope of Section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) of the Act

B. 该法第212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I)条的范围

In Richmond, the Second Circuit noted that the statutory language of section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) regarding the “purpose or benefit” requirement

在Richmond案中，第二巡回法院指出，第212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I)条关于“目的或利益”要求的法定语言

cannot be read so broadly that it fails to exclude anything. There must be some situation in which an alien falsely represents himself to be a citizen for some purpose that does not fall under federal or state law. Otherwise, the “for any purpose or

不能被解释得过于宽泛以至于不排除任何情形。必须存在某种情形，外国人虚假陈述自己为公民的目的不属于联邦或州法律范围。否则，“为任何目的或

784

784

Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 779 (BIA 2016) Interim Decision #3867

引用为 26 I&N Dec. 779 (BIA 2016) 临时决定#3867

benefit” requirement of § 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) would become surplusage—“a result that is to be avoided in statutory construction.” Richmond, 714 F.3d at 729 (quoting Filler v. Hanvit Bank, 378 F.3d 213, 220 (2d Cir. 2004)); see also Castro, 671 F.3d at 368 (expressing the same concern). The court also observed that although two other circuits had found instances of false claims to citizenship that fell outside the scope of the “for any purpose or benefit” requirement of section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I), ambiguity still existed as to the requirement’s limitations or “which certain kinds of misrepresentations can be said to fall outside the requirement’s scope.” Richmond, 714 F.3d at 730. The court noted that ambiguity still remained as to whether the presence of a “purpose or benefit” is to be determined objectively, based on whether citizenship status would “actually affect” the acquisition of a benefit, or subjectively, based on the effect that the individual making a citizenship claim intends it to have. Id. The court further opined that the “purpose or benefit” of the misrepresentation could also be determined using both objective and subjective tests. Id. In that case, aliens would trigger inadmissibility under section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) of the Act only if they misrepresented their citizenship with the “reasonable intention” of achieving some purpose or benefit under the Act, or any other Federal or State law. Id.

第212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I)条的“利益”要件将变成多余——“这一结果在成文法解释中应予避免。” Richmond, 714 F.3d at 729（引用Filler v. Hanvit Bank, 378 F.3d 213, 220 (2d Cir. 2004)）；另见Castro, 671 F.3d at 368（表达了同样的 关切）。法院还指出，尽管另外两个巡回法院曾认定存在不属于第212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I)条“为任何目的或利益”要件范围的虚假公民身份主张的情形， 但就该要件的限制，或“哪些类型的虚假陈述可以说属于该要件范围之外”， 仍然存在歧义。Richmond, 714 F.3d at 730。法院指出，关于“目的或利益” 的存在是应客观确定——基于公民身份是否会“实际影响”某项利益的 取得——还是应主观确定——基于提出公民身份主张的个人意图使其产生 的效果，仍然存在歧义。Id. 法院进一步认为，虚假陈述的“目的或利益” 也可以同时使用客观和主观标准来确定。Id. 在该案中，外国人只有在 以“合理意图”实现该法或任何其他联邦或州法律项下的某种目的或 利益而虚假陈述其公民身份时，才会触发该法第212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I)条 规定的不可入境。Id.

In Castro, 671 F.3d at 370, the Third Circuit found that the alien’s false claim to United States citizenship to local police while he was being arrested for disorderly conduct had not been made for “any purpose or benefit” under the law because it had not been shown that he was “seeking a public benefit from the . . . police, in the sense of a benefit created by law and administered by the police.” Nor was there any objective evidence that the police could “confer” a benefit on him. Id. at 370−71. The court additionally noted that “the ‘purpose or benefit’” the Board imputed to the alien—“minimiz[ing] the risk that the police would report his arrest to DHS”—was an assumption that was not supported by the evidence. Id. at 370. The police could not bestow an immigration benefit on the alien on account of his status; nor did the alien’s status affect his arrest for disorderly conduct. Id.6

在Castro, 671 F.3d at 370中，第三巡回法院认定，外国人在因扰乱治安被捕时向当地警察虚假主张美国公民身份并非为法律下“任何目的或利益”而作出，因为未证明他“向……警察寻求公共福利，即法律创设并由警察管理的福利”。也没有任何客观证据表明警察可以“授予”他利益。Id. at 370−71。法院还指出，委员会归因于外国人的“目的或利益”——“最小化警察将其逮捕报告给DHS的风险”——是没有证据支持的假设。Id. at 370。警察不能因其身份而给予外国人移民利益；外国人的身份也不影响其因扰乱治安被捕。Id.6

By contrast, where an alien makes a false claim to United States citizenship directly to DHS officers, the courts have found that such a misrepresentation has been made to achieve or obtain the “purpose or

相比之下，当外国人直接向DHS官员虚假主张美国公民身份时，法院认定此类虚假陈述是为实现或获得“目的或

6 However, a different result is possible where there is some evidence that a law enforcement agency would report the alienage of individuals who have been arrested and booked for a criminal violation. See DHS, Priority Enforcement Program, https://www.ice.gov/pep.

6 然而，如果有证据表明执法机构会报告因刑事违规被捕和登记的外国人的身份，则可能产生不同结果。见DHS, Priority Enforcement Program, https://www.ice.gov/pep。

785

785

Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 779 (BIA 2016) Interim Decision #3867

引用为 26 I&N Dec. 779 (BIA 2016) 临时决定#3867

benefit” of gaining entry or admission into the United States. See Valadez-Munoz v. Holder, 623 F.3d 1304, 1308−09 (9th Cir. 2010) (observing that there is a distinction between making a false claim to citizenship to local police and border patrol agents and noting that the latter misrepresentation may allow an alien to avoid inspection and “enter [the United States] without difficulty”).

利益”——即获得进入或入境美国——而作出。见Valadez-Munoz v. Holder, 623 F.3d 1304, 1308−09 (9th Cir. 2010)（观察到向当地警察和边境巡逻人员虚假主张公民身份之间存在区别，并指出后者的虚假陈述可能使外国人避免检查并“毫无困难地进入[美国]”）。

Another example of the limiting scope of the “for any purpose or benefit” requirement is evident in Hassan v. Holder, 604 F.3d 915 (6th Cir. 2010). In Hassan, the court held that the DHS had not shown that the petitioner’s false claim to citizenship on a Small Business Administration (“SBA”) loan application was made to achieve a purpose or to obtain a benefit under section 237(a)(3)(D) of the Act,7 because the DHS had not “attempted to show the ‘purpose or benefit’” he received, either by demonstrating “how, if at all, [his citizenship] would affect the loan application” or by proving that he made the false claim with the subjective belief that citizenship status affected the application. Id. at 928−29. Cf. Dwumaah v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 609 F.3d 586, 589 (3d Cir. 2010) (upholding the Board’s determination that an individual was removable under section 237(a)(3)(D) of the Act for falsely claiming citizenship on an application for a Federal student loan because citizenship was a prerequisite to such a loan).

“为任何目的或利益”要求限制范围的另一个例子在Hassan v. Holder, 604 F.3d 915 (6th Cir. 2010)中显而易见。在Hassan案中，法院认定DHS未证明申请人在小企业管理局（“SBA”）贷款申请中虚假主张公民身份是为实现该法第237(a)(3)(D)条下的目的或获得其利益，7因为DHS未“试图表明”他获得的“目的或利益”，既未证明“其[公民身份]如何（如果有的话）影响贷款申请”，也未证明他作出虚假主张时主观认为公民身份影响申请。Id. at 928−29。参见Dwumaah v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 609 F.3d 586, 589 (3d Cir. 2010)（维持委员会根据该法第237(a)(3)(D)条认定个人因在联邦学生贷款申请中虚假主张公民身份而可被驱逐，因为公民身份是此类贷款的先决条件）。

Both of these cases involved aliens misrepresenting their citizenship and seeking benefits under Federal law, but only in Dwumaah was citizenship a prerequisite to the loan’s approval—in other words, citizenship status actually affected the student loan application. However, as the court opined in Richmond, whether citizenship actually affects the purpose or benefit sought may not be the end of the inquiry—the presence of a “purpose or benefit” may also be determined subjectively. The court also noted that in Hassan, 604 F.3d at 928, the Sixth Circuit did not hold that obtaining an SBA loan cannot qualify as a “purpose or benefit” under the Act, or any other Federal or State law—only that the DHS, which had the burden of proof in Hassan, had not shown how the “purpose or benefit” requirement had been met in that case. Richmond, 714 F.3d at 730.

这两起案件都涉及外国人虚假陈述其公民身份并根据联邦法律寻求利益，但只有在Dwumaah案中公民身份是贷款批准的先决条件——换言之，公民身份实际影响了学生贷款申请。然而，正如法院在Richmond案中所认为的，公民身份是否实际影响所寻求的目的或利益可能不是调查的终点——“目的或利益”的存在也可以主观确定。法院还指出，在Hassan, 604 F.3d at 928中，第六巡回法院并未认定获得SBA贷款不能构成该法或任何其他联邦或州法律下的“目的或利益”——只是认定在Hassan案中负有举证责任的DHS未证明“目的或利益”要求如何得到满足。Richmond, 714 F.3d at 730。

Based on the foregoing analysis, we conclude that the scope of section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) of the Act is limited to false claims to United States citizenship that meet two requirements. First, the Immigration Judge must find direct or circumstantial evidence demonstrating that the false claim was made with the subjective intent of achieving a purpose or obtaining a benefit under the Act or any other Federal or State law. Second, the 7 Section 237(a)(3)(D)(i) mirrors the language of section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) of the Act but renders an alien deportable, rather than inadmissible.

基于上述分析，我们得出结论，《移民与国籍法》第212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I)条的范围限于符合两项要件的虚假美国公民身份主张。第一，移民法官必须认定存在直接或间接证据，证明该虚假主张系出于实现该法或任何其他联邦或州法律项下的目的或获得其项下利益的主观意图而作出。第二， 7 第237(a)(3)(D)(i)条与《移民与国籍法》第212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I)条的措辞相同，但规定外国人可被驱逐出境，而非不可入境。

786

786

Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 779 (BIA 2016) Interim Decision #3867

引注为 26 I&N Dec. 779 (BIA 2016) 临时决定第3867号

presence of a purpose or benefit must be determined objectively—that is, the United States citizenship must actually affect or matter to the purpose or benefit sought. Consequently, not every false claim to United States citizenship will trigger inadmissibility under section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I).

目的或利益的存在必须客观确定——也就是说，美国公民身份必须实际影响或关乎所寻求的目的或利益。因此，并非每一项虚假美国公民身份主张都会触发第212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I)条下的不可入境。

C. Defining “Purpose” and “Benefit”

C. 界定“目的”与“利益”

In determining whether there is a distinction between achieving a “purpose” and obtaining a “benefit” under section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) of the Act, we observe that Congress drafted the terms “purpose or benefit” in the disjunctive. As a consequence, we must attribute separate meanings to these terms. See Garcia v. United States, 469 U.S. 70, 73 (1984) (“Canons of construction indicate that terms connected in the disjunctive in this manner be given separate meanings.”).

在确定《移民与国籍法》第212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I)条下实现“目的”与获得“利益”之间是否存在区别时，我们注意到国会以选择连词方式起草了“目的或利益”这两个术语。因此，我们必须赋予这些术语各自不同的含义。见 Garcia v. United States, 469 U.S. 70, 73 (1984)（“解释规则表明，以这种方式用选择连词连接的术语应被赋予各自不同的含义。”）。

Because the Act does not define what constitutes a “benefit” or “purpose” under section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I), we consider legislative history to help interpret the meaning of these terms. See, e.g., Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 518 (BIA 2015). As previously noted, section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) was added to the Act by the IIRIRA with the intent to prevent unauthorized employment and fraudulent procurement of public services and benefits by illegal aliens. H.R. Rep. No. 104-828, at 199; 142 Cong. Rec. 24,783 (1996); 142 Cong. Rec. 10,030 (1996).

由于《移民与国籍法》未界定第212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I)条下何为“利益”或“目的”，我们考虑立法沿革以帮助解释这些术语的含义。见，例如，Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 518 (BIA 2015)。如前所述，第212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I)条系由《非法移民改革和移民责任法》添加至该法，其意图是防止非法外国人未经授权就业以及欺诈性获取公共服务和利益。H.R. Rep. No. 104-828, at 199; 142 Cong. Rec. 24,783 (1996); 142 Cong. Rec. 10,030 (1996)。

1. Benefit Section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) contemplates that a “benefit” must be identifiable and enumerated in the Act or any other Federal or State law. Relevant court decisions finding a cognizable “benefit” under this section support this interpretation, holding that false claims to citizenship made to obtain a passport, admission to the United States, and private sector employment would qualify as “benefits.” See, e.g., Rodriguez v. Gonzales, 451 F.3d 60, 65 (2d Cir. 2006) (holding that a false claim to United States citizenship made to obtain a passport renders an alien inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) of the Act); Matter of Barcenas-Barrera, 25 I&N Dec. 40, 44 (BIA 2009) (holding same and describing a passport as a legal “benefit” under Federal law because it facilitates its holder’s entry into the United States); see also Castro, 671 F.3d at 369 (“As with a passport, it is relatively straightforward to view obtaining entry to the United States as a benefit under federal law, such that false claims of U.S. citizenship made to immigration authorities to obtain entry would satisfy” section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)); Ferrans v. Holder, 612 F.3d 528, 532 (6th Cir. 2010) (holding that obtaining private sector employment qualifies as a benefit

1. 利益 第212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I)条设想“利益”必须是可识别的，并在该法或任何其他联邦或州法律中列明。相关法院判决认定本条下存在可认知的“利益”，支持这一解释，裁定为获得护照、入境美国以及私营部门就业而作出的虚假公民身份主张均符合“利益”。见，例如，Rodriguez v. Gonzales, 451 F.3d 60, 65 (2d Cir. 2006)（裁定为获得护照而作出的虚假美国公民身份主张使外国人依《移民与国籍法》第212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I)条不可入境）；Matter of Barcenas-Barrera, 25 I&N Dec. 40, 44 (BIA 2009)（作出相同裁定，并将护照描述为联邦法律下的法律“利益”，因为其便利持有人入境美国）；另见 Castro, 671 F.3d at 369（“与护照一样，将获得入境美国视为联邦法律下的利益相对直接，因此向移民当局作出的为获得入境而提出的虚假美国公民身份主张将满足”第212(a)(6)(C)(ii)条）；Ferrans v. Holder, 612 F.3d 528, 532 (6th Cir. 2010)（裁定获得私营部门就业符合利益

787

787

Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 779 (BIA 2016) Interim Decision #3867

引注为 26 I&N Dec. 779 (BIA 2016) 临时决定第3867号

under section 237(a)(3)(D)(i) of the Act); Theodros v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 396, 402 (5th Cir. 2007) (same); Jamieson v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 765, 768 (8th Cir. 2005) (stating that “obtaining entry to the country . . . is a ‘benefit’ under the Act”).

符合《移民与国籍法》第237(a)(3)(D)(i)条下的利益）；Theodros v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 396, 402 (5th Cir. 2007)（相同）；Jamieson v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 765, 768 (8th Cir. 2005)（指出“获得入境该国……是该法下的‘利益’”）。

Although avoiding removal proceedings may not be an identifiable “benefit” under the Act, our inquiry does not end, because obtaining a legal “benefit” can be distinguishable from achieving a “purpose” under the Act. See Garcia, 469 U.S. at 73.

尽管避免驱逐出境程序可能并非该法下可识别的“利益”，但我们的探究并未结束，因为获得法律“利益”可与实现该法下的“目的”相区分。见 Garcia, 469 U.S. at 73。

2. Purpose

2. 目的

The legislative history of section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) of the Act does not elucidate the meaning of the term “purpose” in that provision. However, where the specific question is not answered by the plain language of the statute, either because the language is silent or is susceptible to varying interpretations, “it is our duty to resolve any ambiguities and fill any statutory gaps in a reasonable manner.” Matter of Ordaz, 26 I&N Dec. 637, 639 (BIA 2015) (quoting Matter of Velasquez-Herrera, 24 I&N Dec. 503, 508 (BIA 2008)); see also Negusie v. Holder, 555 U.S. 511, 523 (2009).

《移民与国籍法》第212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I)条的立法沿革并未阐明该条中“目的”一词的含义。然而，当具体问题未由法规的平实语言所回答，或因为该语言沉默，或因为该语言易受不同解释时，“我们有义务以合理方式解决任何歧义并填补任何法定空白。”Matter of Ordaz, 26 I&N Dec. 637, 639 (BIA 2015)（引用 Matter of Velasquez-Herrera, 24 I&N Dec. 503, 508 (BIA 2008)）；另见 Negusie v. Holder, 555 U.S. 511, 523 (2009)。

The term “purpose” in section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) includes the avoidance of negative legal consequences—including removal proceedings. In Kechkar v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 1080, 1084 (10th Cir. 2007), the Tenth Circuit found that an alien’s false claim to citizenship to gain private sector employment had been made for a “purpose” under the Act because it is “self-evident that an alien who misrepresents citizenship to obtain private employment does so, at the very least, for the ‘purpose’ of evading [the Act’s] prohibition on ‘a person or other entity’ knowingly hiring aliens who are not authorized to work in this country.” (Emphasis added.) We have similarly found it to be self-evident that an alien who makes a false claim to United States citizenship to DHS officers at a port of entry in order to gain admission to the United States has done so not only to obtain the “benefit” of entry but also to achieve, at least in part, the “purpose” of evading the Act’s inspection requirement. See Matter of Pinzon, 26 I&N Dec. 189, 191−92 (BIA 2013) (finding that an alien who made a false claim to citizenship at the port of entry evaded inspection and was inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act); see also Matter of F-, 9 I&N Dec. 54, 56 (Reg’l Comm’r, Ass’t Comm’r 1960) (noting that an alien who makes a false claim to United States citizenship to gain entry to this country has done so “for the purpose of evading inspection”).

第212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I)条中的“目的”一词包括避免负面法律后果——包括驱逐出境程序。在 Kechkar v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 1080, 1084 (10th Cir. 2007) 中，第十巡回法院认定，外国人为获得私营部门就业而作出的虚假公民身份主张系为该法下的“目的”而作出，因为“不言自明的是，为获得私营就业而虚假陈述公民身份的外国人这样做，至少是为了‘目的’规避[该法]关于禁止‘个人或其他实体’明知雇用未经授权在该国工作的外国人的规定。”（着重号为原文所加。）我们同样认定，不言自明的是，外国人在入境口岸向国土安全部官员作出虚假美国公民身份主张以获得入境美国，其这样做不仅是为了获得入境的“利益”，而且至少部分是为了实现规避该法检查要求的“目的”。见 Matter of Pinzon, 26 I&N Dec. 189, 191−92 (BIA 2013)（认定在入境口岸作出虚假公民身份主张的外国人规避了检查，依《移民与国籍法》第212(a)(6)(C)(ii)条不可入境）；另见 Matter of F-, 9 I&N Dec. 54, 56 (Reg’l Comm’r, Ass’t Comm’r 1960)（指出为获得入境该国而作出虚假美国公民身份主张的外国人这样做是“为了规避检查的目的”）。

Although aliens who have gained private sector employment and admission to the United States have obtained “benefits” under the law, this

尽管已获得私营部门就业和入境美国的外国人已获得法律下的“利益”，但这一

788

788

Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 779 (BIA 2016) Interim Decision #3867

引注为 26 I&N Dec. 779 (BIA 2016) 临时决定第3867号

same conduct can also be characterized as achieving a “purpose” within the meaning of section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) of the Act. In Matter of Barcenas-Barrera, 25 I&N Dec. at 44, we held that an alien’s false claim to citizenship on a United States passport application rendered her inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) because “[o]btaining a United States passport is clearly a benefit within the scope of this section.” Moreover, we found that the alien had applied for the passport because “she intended to give [it to] her employer as proof that she had authorization to work.” Id. at 41. Therefore, while obtaining a legal benefit, a passport, the alien had also made her false claim to citizenship for the “purpose” of evading the Act’s prohibition on unauthorized employment. See Kechkar, 500 F.3d at 1084. Similarly, while the Eighth Circuit has held that an alien who makes a false claim to citizenship to immigration authorities has done so to obtain the benefit of entering the United States, Jamieson, 424 F.3d at 768, we have noted that such a false claim may also be made in order to achieve “the purpose of evading inspection,” Matter of F-, 9 I&N Dec. at 56.

同一行为也可被定性为实现《移民与国籍法》第212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I)条含义内的“目的”。在 Matter of Barcenas-Barrera, 25 I&N Dec. at 44 中，我们认定，外国人在美国护照申请中作出虚假公民身份主张使其依第212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I)条不可入境，因为“[o]获得美国护照显然属于本条范围内的利益。”此外，我们认定该外国人申请护照是因为“她意图将[其]交给其雇主，作为其有工作授权的证明。”Id. at 41。因此，该外国人在获得法律利益即护照的同时，也为其虚假公民身份主张系为规避该法禁止未经授权就业的“目的”而作出。见 Kechkar, 500 F.3d at 1084。同样，尽管第八巡回法院认定，向移民当局作出虚假公民身份主张的外国人这样做是为了获得入境美国的利益，Jamieson, 424 F.3d at 768，我们已指出，此类虚假主张也可能系为实现“规避检查的目的”而作出，Matter of F-, 9 I&N Dec. at 56。

An alien who makes a false claim to United States citizenship succeeds in avoiding the negative legal consequences of inspection or removal proceedings, if at all, because the Act and other Federal laws do not subject citizens to the same level of scrutiny at the port of entry as aliens, and because these laws do not render citizens removable. See Matter of Pinzon, 26 I&N Dec. at 191; see also Richmond, 714 F.3d at 730. Accordingly, we hold that avoiding removal proceedings is “the kind of purpose” covered by section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) of the Act. Richmond, 714 F.3d at 730 (emphasis added).

作出虚假美国公民身份主张的外国人之所以成功避免检查或驱逐出境程序的负面法律后果（如果确实成功），是因为该法和其他联邦法律在入境口岸对公民的审查程度不及对外国人的审查程度，且因为这些法律不使公民可被驱逐。见 Matter of Pinzon, 26 I&N Dec. at 191；另见 Richmond, 714 F.3d at 730。因此，我们认定，避免驱逐出境程序属于《移民与国籍法》第212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I)条所涵盖的“那类目的”。Richmond, 714 F.3d at 730（着重号为原文所加）。

V. APPLICATION TO THE RESPONDENT The respondent has not met his burden of establishing that he is not inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) of the Act. Crocock v. Holder, 670 F.3d 400, 403 (2d Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (noting that an alien applying for adjustment of status is “required to prove a negative— that he did not falsely claim United States citizenship” within the meaning of section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) of the Act). The respondent made a false claim to United States citizenship to DHS officers while he was unlawfully present in the United States. His claim that he genuinely believed he was a United States citizen was found to be not credible. Based on this adverse credibility finding, the Immigration Judge properly determined that the respondent had the subjective intent to avoid removal proceedings when he made these misrepresentations. See Matter of D-R-, 25 I&N Dec. 445, 453−54 (BIA 2011) (holding that an Immigration Judge may make

V. 对答辩人的适用 答辩人未能履行其证明责任，证明其依《移民与国籍法》第212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I)条并非不可入境。Crocock v. Holder, 670 F.3d 400, 403 (2d Cir. 2012)（per curiam）（指出申请调整身份的外国人“须证明一项否定性事实——即其未在《移民与国籍法》第212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I)条含义内虚假主张美国公民身份”）。答辩人在其非法居留美国期间向国土安全部官员作出了虚假美国公民身份主张。其关于其真诚相信自己系美国公民的主张被认定不可信。基于这一不利的可信度认定，移民法官适当地认定答辩人在作出这些虚假陈述时具有避免驱逐出境程序的主观意图。见 Matter of D-R-, 25 I&N Dec. 445, 453−54 (BIA 2011)（认定移民法官可以作出

789

789

Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 779 (BIA 2016) Interim Decision #3867

引注为 26 I&N Dec. 779 (BIA 2016) 临时决定第3867号

reasonable inferences based on the evidence and that a choice between two plausible alternative interpretations of the record is not clearly erroneous). We therefore conclude that the respondent has not shown that, at the time of his false claim to United States citizenship, he did not have the subjective intent to achieve the “purpose” under the Act of avoiding removal proceedings.

基于证据的合理推断，且在对记录两种可能替代解释之间作出选择并不构成明显错误）。因此，我们得出结论，答辩人未能证明在其作出虚假美国公民身份主张时，其不具有实现该法下避免驱逐出境程序这一“目的”的主观意图。

According to the respondent, because DHS officers generally conduct an independent investigation to verify a claim to United States citizenship, such a false claim made to a DHS officer does not actually affect whether an individual would be identified as an alien and placed in removal proceedings. We are not persuaded by this argument. The respondent’s misrepresentations were made to DHS officials in the context of an investigation regarding his immigration status, and as the Immigration Judge noted, his false claim would “completely exempt the respondent from further scrutiny or investigation by Immigration Officers.” See Matter of Pinzon, 26 I&N Dec. at 191 (recognizing “that a United States citizen is not subject to the same scrutiny and requirements as an alien during the process of inspection” by immigration authorities (citing Reid v. INS, 420 U.S. 619, 624−25 (1975))). Since United States citizens are not removable, we conclude that the respondent has not shown that citizenship would not actually affect his ability to achieve his intended purpose of avoiding removal proceedings.

据答辩人称，由于国土安全部（DHS）官员通常会进行独立调查以核实美国公民身份的主张，因此向DHS官员提出的此类虚假主张实际上并不影响个人是否会被认定为外国人并被置于遣返程序之中。我们并不信服这一论点。答辩人的虚假陈述是在有关其移民身份的调查过程中向DHS官员作出的，并且正如移民法官所指出的，他的虚假主张将“完全使答辩人免于移民官员的进一步审查或调查”。参见Matter of Pinzon, 26 I&N Dec. at 191（承认“美国公民在移民当局检查过程中不受与外国人相同的审查和要求”（引述Reid v. INS, 420 U.S. 619, 624−25 (1975)））。由于美国公民不可被遣返，我们认定答辩人未能证明公民身份实际上不会影响其实现避免遣返程序这一预期目的的能力。

VI. CONCLUSION The respondent has not met his burden of proving that his false claim to United States citizenship was not made “for any purpose or benefit” under the Act and thus does not render him inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) of the Act. The respondent has not shown that he lacked the subjective intent to avoid removal proceedings when he made his false claim to citizenship. Nor did he demonstrate that United States citizenship does not actually affect removal proceedings under the Act. We therefore affirm the Immigration Judge’s finding that the respondent is inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) of the Act and ineligible for adjustment of status. Accordingly, the respondent’s appeal will be dismissed.

VI. 结论 答辩人未能履行其举证责任，证明其虚假的美国公民身份主张并非“为任何目的或利益”根据该法提出，因此并不依据该法第212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I)条使其不可入境。答辩人未能证明其在提出虚假公民身份主张时缺乏避免遣返程序的主观意图。其亦未能证明美国公民身份实际上不影响该法下的遣返程序。因此，我们维持移民法官的认定，即答辩人依据该法第212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I)条不可入境且不符合调整身份的资格。据此，答辩人的上诉将被驳回。

790

790