Matter of Barcenas-Barrera

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 40 (BIA 2009) Interim Decision #3647

引用为 25 I&N Dec. 40 (BIA 2009) 临时决定第3647号

File A093 086 418 - Houston, Texas

案卷号 A093 086 418 - 德克萨斯州休斯顿

Decided June 19, 2009

2009年6月19日裁定

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

美国司法部 移民审查执行办公室 移民上诉委员会

(1) An alien who willfully and knowingly makes a false representation of birth in the United States on a passport application is inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii) (2006), for making a false representation of United States citizenship.

(1) 外国人在护照申请中故意且明知地虚假陈述其在美国出生，即构成《移民与国籍法》第212(a)(6)(C)(ii)条、8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii) (2006) 规定的不可入境，理由为虚假陈述美国公民身份。

(2) The respondent, who was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1542 (2006) for falsely representing that she was born in the United States on an application for a passport, is removable under section 237(a)(1)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(A) (2006), as an alien who was inadmissible at the time of her adjustment of status under section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act.

(2) 被申请人因在护照申请中虚假陈述其在美国出生而违反18 U.S.C. § 1542 (2006) 并被定罪，依据该法第237(a)(1)(A)条、8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(A) (2006)，其作为在依据该法第212(a)(6)(C)(ii)条调整身份时不可入境的外国人，应予驱逐。

FOR RESPONDENT: Charissee L. Garza, Esquire, Bellaire, Texas

被申请人代理律师：Charissee L. Garza 律师，德克萨斯州贝莱尔

FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Merilee Fong, Assistant Chief Counsel

国土安全部代理律师：Merilee Fong，助理首席法律顾问

BEFORE: Board Panel: GRANT, MILLER, and MALPHRUS, Board Members.

审理法官：委员会合议庭成员 GRANT、MILLER 和 MALPHRUS。

MALPHRUS, Board Member:

MALPHRUS，委员会成员：

In a decision dated March 29, 2007, an Immigration Judge found that the respondent is not removable under section 237(a)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(A) (2006), as an alien who was inadmissible at the time of her adjustment of status under section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii) (2006), because she had not falsely represented herself to be a United States citizen.1

在2007年3月29日的裁定中，移民法官认定，被申请人并非依据《移民与国籍法》第237(a)(1)(A)条、8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(A) (2006) 应予驱逐的外国人，即并非在依据该法第212(a)(6)(C)(ii)条、8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii) (2006) 调整身份时不可入境的外国人，理由是她未曾虚假陈述自己为美国公民。1

1 The Immigration Judge did, however, find that the respondent was inadmissible at the time of her adjustment of status under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Act, as an alien who sought to procure a United States passport by fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact. He also granted her request for a waiver of inadmissibility under section 237(a)(1)(H) of the Act, which is available to waive the grounds of inadmissibility under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i), but not under section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii).

1 然而，移民法官确实认定，被申请人依据该法第212(a)(6)(C)(i)条在调整身份时不可入境，理由是其作为外国人以欺诈或故意虚假陈述重大事实的方式寻求取得美国护照。他还批准了她依据该法第237(a)(1)(H)条提出的不可入境豁免请求，该条可用于豁免第212(a)(6)(C)(i)条规定的不可入境理由，但不可用于豁免第212(a)(6)(C)(ii)条规定的不可入境理由。

40

40

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 40 (BIA 2009) Interim Decision #3647

引用为 25 I&N Dec. 40 (BIA 2009) 临时决定第3647号

The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) has appealed from the Immigration Judge’s determination that the respondent was not inadmissible under that section. The appeal will be sustained.

国土安全部（“DHS”）对移民法官关于被申请人依据该条并非不可入境的认定提出上诉。上诉予以支持。

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

I. 事实与程序历史

The respondent is a native and citizen of Mexico. In March 2003, she applied at a United States Post Office for a United States passport,2 which she intended to give her employer as proof that she had authorization to work. She had previously provided her employer a false social security card and birth certificate, which the employer had rejected as invalid. The passport application, which she signed under oath, states that she was born in “Edinburg, TX.” The respondent’s status was adjusted to that of a lawful permanent resident in September 2004, based on her marriage to a naturalized United States citizen. In March 2006, the respondent was convicted of making a false statement on an application for a passport in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1542, for which she was sentenced to 3 years’ probation.3 Count one of the indictment to which the respondent pled guilty states that on or about March 12, 2003, she:

被申请人是墨西哥国民和公民。2003年3月，她在美国邮政局申请美国护照，2 她打算将其交给雇主，作为其有工作授权的证明。她此前曾向雇主提供虚假的社会保障卡和出生证明，雇主以无效为由拒绝接受。她宣誓签署的护照申请书写明她出生于“德克萨斯州爱丁堡”。2004年9月，基于其与美国归化公民的婚姻，被申请人的身份调整为合法永久居民。 2006年3月，被申请人因在护照申请中作出虚假陈述违反18 U.S.C. § 1542而被定罪，并被判处3年缓刑。3 被申请人认罪的起诉书第一项指控称，约在2003年3月12日，她：

willfully and knowingly made a false statement in an application for a passport with intent to induce and secure for her own use the issuance of a passport under the authority of the United States, contrary to the laws regulating the issuance of such passports and the rules prescribed pursuant to such laws, in that in such application the defendant stated that her place of birth was “Edinburg, TX,” which statement she knew to be false.

故意且明知地在护照申请中作出虚假陈述，意图为其本人使用而诱使并取得美国授权签发的护照，违反规范此类护照签发的法律及依据该等法律制定的规则，即在该申请中，被告陈述其出生地为“德克萨斯州爱丁堡”，而该陈述她明知为虚假。

The record contains a copy of page 3 of the respondent’s passport application, which lists her place of birth as “Edinburg, TX.” Immediately above the respondent’s signature, the application includes a warning that it

案卷中包含被申请人护照申请书第3页的副本，其中列明其出生地为“德克萨斯州爱丁堡”。在被申请人签名正上方，申请书载有一项警告，即

2 The Secretary of State has the authority to issue passports, which has been delegated to selected agents, including duly designated postal employees, who have the authority to accept passport applications and administer oaths in connection with such applications. See United States v. Salinas, 373 F.3d 161, 162 (1st Cir. 2004). 3 According to 18 U.S.C. § 1542 (2006):

2 国务卿有权签发护照，该权力已授予特定代理人，包括经正式指定的邮政雇员，其有权接受护照申请并就此类申请主持宣誓。见 United States v. Salinas, 373 F.3d 161, 162 (1st Cir. 2004)。 3 根据18 U.S.C. § 1542 (2006)：

Whoever willfully and knowingly makes any false statement in an application for passport with intent to induce or secure the issuance of a passport under the authority of the United States, either for his own use or the use of another, contrary to the laws regulating the issuance of passports or the rules prescribed pursuant to such laws . . . Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned . . . , or both.

任何人故意且明知地在护照申请中作出任何虚假陈述，意图诱使或取得美国授权签发的护照，无论是为其本人使用还是供他人使用，违反规范护照签发的法律或依据该等法律制定的规则…… 应根据本编处以罚款、监禁……或两者并罚。

41

41

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 40 (BIA 2009) Interim Decision #3647

引用为 25 I&N Dec. 40 (BIA 2009) 临时决定第3647号

should not be signed until requested to do so by the person administering the oath, as well as the following affirmation:

在主持宣誓者要求之前不应签署，以及以下确认声明：

I have not, since acquiring United States citizenship, performed any of the acts listed under “Acts or Conditions” on the reverse of this application form (unless explanatory statement is attached). I solemnly swear (or affirm) that the statements made on this application are true and the photograph attached is a true likeness of me.

自我取得美国公民身份以来，我未曾实施本申请书背面“行为或条件”项下所列的任何行为（除非附有说明声明）。我郑重宣誓（或确认），本申请书上的陈述真实，所附照片为我的真实肖像。

(Emphasis added.)

（强调为后加。）

II. ANALYSIS

II. 分析

The DHS argues that clear and convincing evidence establishes that the respondent is removable under section 237(a)(1)(A) of the Act because she was inadmissible at the time of her adjustment of status under section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii). With a limited exception not applicable in this case, that section provides for the inadmissibility of “[a]ny 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.” Section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. We agree with the DHS that the respondent was inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act at the time of her adjustment of status, because the record contains clear and convincing evidence establishing that she falsely represented herself to be a United States citizen for the purpose of obtaining a benefit under the Act or any other Federal or State law. This provision is broadly defined and encompasses the respondent’s representation on her passport application that she was born in Texas. It is undisputed that the respondent signed the application, and the Immigration Judge found that she willfully misrepresented on the application that she was born in Texas. As noted above, by signing the passport application the respondent affirmed that she had “acquir[ed] United States citizenship.” Moreover, the respondent’s conviction establishes that she willfully and knowingly provided the false information regarding her place of birth on the passport application. See, e.g., United States v. George, 386 F.3d 383, 389 (2d Cir. 2004) (holding that a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1542 requires that a defendant has provided in a passport application information that he or she knows to be false); United States v. Suarez-Rosario, 237 F.3d 1164, 1167 (9th Cir. 2001) (stating that “under the terms of 18 U.S.C. § 1542, the government must prove that the defendant made a willful and knowing false statement in an application for a passport or made a willful and knowing use of a passport secured by a false statement”). The fact that the respondent pled

DHS主张，清楚且令人信服的证据证明，被申请人依据该法第237(a)(1)(A)条应予驱逐，因为她在依据第212(a)(6)(C)(ii)条调整身份时不可入境。除本案不适用的一项有限例外外，该条规定，“任何外国人，为本法（包括第274A条）或任何其他联邦或州法律项下的任何目的或利益，虚假陈述或曾虚假陈述自己为美国公民”者不可入境。该法第212(a)(6)(C)(ii)条。 我们同意DHS的意见，即被申请人在调整身份时依据该法第212(a)(6)(C)(ii)条不可入境，因为案卷中包含清楚且令人信服的证据，证明她为取得本法或任何其他联邦或州法律项下的利益而虚假陈述自己为美国公民。该条款定义宽泛，涵盖被申请人在护照申请中关于其出生于德克萨斯的陈述。被申请人签署了该申请书并无争议，且移民法官认定她在申请书中故意虚假陈述其出生于德克萨斯。如上所述，通过签署护照申请书，被申请人确认她已“取得美国公民身份”。 此外，被申请人的定罪证明她故意且明知地在护照申请中提供了关于其出生地的虚假信息。见，例如，United States v. George, 386 F.3d 383, 389 (2d Cir. 2004)（认定依据18 U.S.C. § 1542定罪要求被告在护照申请中提供了其明知为虚假的信息）；United States v. Suarez-Rosario, 237 F.3d 1164, 1167 (9th Cir. 2001)（指出“根据18 U.S.C. § 1542的规定，政府必须证明被告在护照申请中作出故意且明知的虚假陈述，或故意且明知地使用以虚假陈述取得的护照”）。被申请人认罪

42

42

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 40 (BIA 2009) Interim Decision #3647

引用为 25 I&N Dec. 40 (BIA 2009) 临时决定第3647号

guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 1542 precludes her from claiming that she did not knowingly submit false information to obtain a passport. See Rodriguez v. Gonzales, 451 F.3d 60, 65 (2d Cir. 2006) (determining that an alien who pled guilty to a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1542 was inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and was therefore precluded from receiving adjustment of status); see also Pichardo v. INS, 216 F.3d 1198, 1201 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding that a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 911 for making a false claim of United States citizenship established an independent ground for the alien’s inadmissibility under section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act).4 We disagree with the Immigration Judge’s conclusion that the respondent’s false representation on a passport application that she was born in Texas does not amount to a claim to be a United States citizen because a noncitizen national can apply for and receive a passport. While a national may be eligible for a passport, see 22 C.F.R. §§ 51.1(l), 51.2(a) (2009), the respondent never claimed to be a “national,” a term that has historically “referred only to noncitizens born in territories of the United States.” Fernandez v. Keisler, 502 F.3d 337, 349 (4th Cir. 2007); see also Matter of Navas-Acosta, 23 I&N Dec. 586, 587 (BIA 2003). See generally sections 101(a)(22), 308 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(22), 1408 (2006). The respondent claimed to have been born in Texas, not in a territory. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”5 Therefore the

承认违反18 U.S.C. § 1542，这一事实阻止她主张其并非明知地为取得护照而提交虚假信息。见 Rodriguez v. Gonzales, 451 F.3d 60, 65 (2d Cir. 2006)（认定认罪承认违反18 U.S.C. § 1542的外国人依据该法第212(a)(6)(C)(ii)条不可入境，因而被禁止获得调整身份）；另见 Pichardo v. INS, 216 F.3d 1198, 1201 (9th Cir. 2000)（认定依据18 U.S.C. § 911因虚假声称美国公民身份而被定罪，构成该外国人依据该法第212(a)(6)(C)(ii)条不可入境的独立理由）。4 我们不同意移民法官的结论，即被申请人在护照申请中虚假陈述其出生于德克萨斯不构成声称自己是美国公民，因为非公民国民可以申请并获得护照。虽然国民可能有资格获得护照，见22 C.F.R. §§ 51.1(l), 51.2(a) (2009)，但被申请人从未声称自己是“国民”，该术语在历史上“仅指在美国领土出生的非公民”。Fernandez v. Keisler, 502 F.3d 337, 349 (4th Cir. 2007)；另见 Matter of Navas-Acosta, 23 I&N Dec. 586, 587 (BIA 2003)。一般见该法第101(a)(22)、308条，8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(22), 1408 (2006)。被申请人声称出生于德克萨斯，而非出生于某领土。《美国宪法第十四修正案》规定：“所有在美国出生或归化并受其管辖的人，均为美国及其所居住州的公民。”5 因此，

4 We recognize that in United States v. Karaouni, 379 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 2004), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a defendant’s criminal conviction for making a false claim to United States citizenship under 18 U.S.C. § 911, where the sole evidence was that he checked a box on an employment form indicating that he was a “citizen or national of the United States.” However, Karaouni is distinguishable from this case, in part because it involved a criminal statute that carries the higher burden of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See Theodros v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 396, 401 n.7 (5th Cir. 2007). 5 We note that a person born in the United States is both a citizen and national of the United States at birth unless the individual is not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Section 301(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a) (2006). This limited exception refers generally to individuals born to foreign diplomats or to enemies within the United States during a hostile occupation of part of the territory of the United States. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 473-74 (1898). There is no basis to include the respondent within this very narrow group, and even if there were, such an individual is not a citizen or national and is therefore not eligible to receive a United States passport. See 22 C.F.R. §§ 51.1(l), 51.2(a) (providing that a passport may be issued only to a United States citizen or a noncitizen national).

4 我们认识到，在United States v. Karaouni, 379 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 2004)案中，美国第九巡回上诉法院撤销了一名被告因根据18 U.S.C. § 911作出虚假美国公民身份主张而被定罪的刑事判决，该案中唯一的证据是他在一份就业表格上勾选了一个方框，表明他是“美国公民或国民”。然而，Karaouni案与本案可以区分，部分原因是该案涉及一项刑事法规，该法规要求更高的证明标准，即排除合理怀疑的罪行证明。参见Theodros v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 396, 401 n.7 (5th Cir. 2007)。 5 我们注意到，在美国出生的人出生时既是美国公民又是美国国民，除非该个人不“受美国管辖”。该法第301(a)条，8 U.S.C. § 1401(a) (2006)。这一有限例外一般指在美国领土部分被敌对占领期间，由外国外交官或美国境内的敌人在美国所生的个人。United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 473-74 (1898)。没有依据将respondent纳入这一非常狭窄的群体，而且即使有依据，此类个人也不是公民或国民，因此没有资格获得美国护照。参见22 C.F.R. §§ 51.1(l), 51.2(a)（规定护照只能签发给美国公民或非公民国民）。

43

43

Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 40 (BIA 2009) Interim Decision #3647

引用为25 I&N Dec. 40 (BIA 2009) 临时决定#3647

respondent’s statement on her passport application that she was born in Texas would not be consistent with a claim to be a noncitizen national. Section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act applies to misrepresentations committed for any purpose or benefit under the Act or any other Federal or State law. Obtaining a United States passport is clearly a benefit within the scope of this section. A passport affords the bearer the benefit of being able to leave and enter the United States. See Jamieson v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 765, 768 (8th Cir. 2005) (holding that obtaining entry to the United States by claiming to be a citizen of this country is a “benefit” under the Act); cf. section 215(b) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1185(b) (2006) (requiring a United States citizen to have a valid passport to depart from or enter the United States unless otherwise provided). A United States passport would also have allowed the respondent to maintain employment in this country, which is the reason she applied for it.6 Further, possession of a valid United States passport is a sufficient basis in itself to terminate immigration proceedings. See Matter of Villanueva, 19 I&N Dec. 101, 103 (BIA 1984) (finding that a valid United States passport issued to an individual as a citizen of the United States constitutes conclusive proof of that person’s citizenship unless the passport is void on its face). Thus, a passport is clearly a “benefit” under the immigration laws, both as proof of United States citizenship and as a means to enter and be employed in this country. We find by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent is removable under section 237(a)(1)(A) as an alien who was inadmissible at the time of her adjustment of status under section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. Section 237(a)(1)(H) of the Act does not waive inadmissibility under section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii). Nor has the respondent applied for or established her eligibility for any other form of relief from removal. Accordingly, the DHS’s appeal will be sustained, and the respondent will be ordered removed from the United States. ORDER: The appeal of the Department of Homeland Security is sustained. FURTHER ORDER: The respondent is ordered removed from the United States to Mexico.

respondent在其护照申请中关于她出生在德克萨斯的陈述，与声称自己是非公民国民不一致。 法案第212(a)(6)(C)(ii)条适用于为法案或任何其他联邦或州法律下的任何目的或利益而作出的虚假陈述。获得合众国护照显然属于本条范围内的利益。护照赋予持照人离开和进入合众国的利益。参见Jamieson v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 765, 768 (8th Cir. 2005)（认定通过声称自己是本国公民而获得进入合众国属于法案下的“利益”）；比较法案第215(b)条，8 U.S.C. § 1185(b) (2006)（要求合众国公民持有有效护照方可离开或进入合众国，除非另有规定）。合众国护照本还可以使respondent得以在本国维持就业，而这正是她申请护照的原因。6 此外，持有有效的合众国护照本身即构成终止移民程序的充分依据。参见Matter of Villanueva, 19 I&N Dec. 101, 103 (BIA 1984)（认定向个人作为合众国公民签发的有效合众国护照构成该人公民身份的结论性证明，除非该护照表面无效）。因此，护照在移民法下显然是一种“利益”，既作为合众国公民身份的证明，也作为进入本国并在本国就业的手段。 我们通过明确且令人信服的证据认定，respondent作为在调整身份时根据法案第212(a)(6)(C)(ii)条不可入境的外国人，根据第237(a)(1)(A)条可被驱逐。 法案第237(a)(1)(H)条并不豁免第212(a)(6)(C)(ii)条下的不可入境性。respondent也未申请或证明其有资格获得任何其他形式的免于驱逐的救济。因此，DHS的上诉将获支持，respondent将被命令驱逐出合众国。 命令：国土安全部的上诉获支持。 进一步命令：respondent被命令从合众国驱逐至墨西哥。

6 Section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii) specifically contemplates including as a “benefit” under the Act those benefits available pursuant to section 274A of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1324a (2006), which relates to alien employment.

6 第212(a)(6)(C)(ii)条特别设想将根据法案第274A条，8 U.S.C. § 1324a (2006)可获得的那些利益（该条涉及外国人就业）纳入法案下的“利益”。

44

44