Matter of Fitzpatrick

Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 559 (BIA 2015) Interim Decision #3835

引用为 26 I&N Dec. 559 (BIA 2015) 临时决定第3835号

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

An alien who has voted in an election involving candidates for Federal office in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 611(a) (2012) is removable under section 237(a)(6)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(6)(A) (2012), regardless of whether the alien knew that he or she was committing an unlawful act by voting. FOR RESPONDENT: Rick Hodge, Esquire, Wichita, Kansas BEFORE: Board Panel: GRANT, MALPHRUS, and MULLANE, Board Members. GRANT, Board Member: In a decision dated June 19, 2009, an Immigration Judge ordered the respondent removed from the United States.1 The respondent has appealed from that decision. The appeal will be dismissed.

违反18 U.S.C. § 611(a) (2012)在涉及联邦公职候选人的选举中投票的外国人，无论该外国人是否知道其投票行为违法，均依据《移民与国籍法》第237(a)(6)(A)条，8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(6)(A) (2012)，可被驱逐。 被申请人代理人：Rick Hodge 律师，堪萨斯州威奇托 审理：委员会合议庭：GRANT、MALPHRUS 和 MULLANE，委员会成员。 GRANT，委员会成员： 在2009年6月19日的决定中，一名移民法官下令将被申请人驱逐出美国。1 被申请人对该决定提出上诉。上诉将被驳回。

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The respondent is a native and citizen of Peru whose nonimmigrant status was adjusted to that of a lawful permanent resident of the United States on June 4, 2004. On August 5, 2005, she applied for an Illinois driver’s license and signed a voter registration application in which she checked a box indicating that she was a United States citizen. The respondent filed an application for naturalization dated April 17, 2007, in which she indicated that she had registered to vote and had voted in an election in the United States. During an interview regarding her application, she disclosed that she had voted in 2006. On January 11, 2008, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) issued a notice to appear, alleging that the respondent voted in the general election in Illinois on November 7, 2006, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 611 (2006), and charging her with removability under section 237(a)(6) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(6) (2006), as an alien

I. 事实与程序历史 被申请人是秘鲁本土出生公民，其非移民身份于2004年6月4日调整为美国合法永久居民。2005年8月5日，她申请伊利诺伊州驾驶执照，并签署了一份选民登记申请，在申请中勾选了一个表明她是美国公民的方框。 被申请人于2007年4月17日提交入籍申请，在申请中表明她已登记投票并在美国某次选举中投票。在就其申请进行面谈时，她披露自己曾在2006年投票。 2008年1月11日，国土安全部（“DHS”）发出出庭通知，指称被申请人于2006年11月7日在伊利诺伊州大选中投票，违反18 U.S.C. § 611 (2006)，并依据《移民与国籍法》第237(a)(6)条，8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(6) (2006)，指控其作为外国人

1 The Immigration Judge previously issued a written decision dated April 21, 2009, in which he found the respondent removable on the charges in the notice to appear.

1 移民法官此前于2009年4月21日作出一份书面决定，认定被申请人因出庭通知中的指控而可被驱逐。

559

559

Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 559 (BIA 2015) Interim Decision #3835

引用为 26 I&N Dec. 559 (BIA 2015) 临时决定第3835号

who voted in violation of law. The DHS also charged the respondent with removability under section 237(a)(3)(D) of the Act as an alien who falsely represented herself to be a United States citizen. The Immigration Judge found that the respondent was removable on both charges.2 The respondent asserts that the Immigration Judge erred in finding her removable. We disagree and conclude that the respondent is removable under section 237(a)(6)(A) of the Act as an alien who voted in violation of a Federal statute, namely, 18 U.S.C. § 611(a). See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(ii) (2014) (providing that the Board reviews de novo questions of law, discretion, and judgment and all other issues in appeals).

违反法律投票而可被驱逐。DHS还依据该法第237(a)(3)(D)条指控被申请人作为虚假声称自己是美国公民的外国人而可被驱逐。移民法官认定被申请人因两项指控均可被驱逐。2 被申请人主张移民法官认定其可被驱逐有误。我们不同意，并认定被申请人依据该法第237(a)(6)(A)条作为违反联邦法规即18 U.S.C. § 611(a)投票的外国人而可被驱逐。参见8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(ii) (2014)（规定委员会对法律、自由裁量权和判断问题以及上诉中的所有其他问题重新审查）。

II. ANALYSIS According to section 237(a)(6)(A) of the Act, “Any alien who has voted in violation of any Federal, State, or local constitutional provision, statute, ordinance, or regulation is deportable.”3 Under 18 U.S.C. § 611(a), it is “unlawful for any alien to vote in any election held solely or in part for the purpose of electing a candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner.” The respondent does not dispute that she voted in a general election involving candidates for Federal office in November 2006 and that she knew she was not a United States citizen at the time she voted. She contends, however, that the DHS has not shown that she intended to vote in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 611. Therefore, the respondent argues that the charge of removability under section 237(a)(6) of the Act cannot be sustained. We do not agree. In meeting its burden of proof to establish the respondent’s removability, the DHS need not show that the respondent knew she was committing an unlawful act by voting in the election. The relevant Federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 611(a), contains no specific intent requirement. It is, instead, a general intent statute, which does not require “proof that the alien knew

II. 分析 根据该法第237(a)(6)(A)条，“任何违反任何联邦、州或地方宪法规定、法规、条例或规章投票的外国人均可被驱逐。”3 根据18 U.S.C. § 611(a)，任何外国人在完全或部分为选举总统、副总统、总统选举人、参议院议员、众议院议员、哥伦比亚特区代表或驻地专员职位候选人而举行的任何选举中投票，均属“非法”。 被申请人不争辩她于2006年11月在涉及联邦公职候选人的大选中投票，且她在投票时知道自己不是美国公民。然而，她主张DHS未证明她意图违反18 U.S.C. § 611投票。因此，被申请人主张依据该法第237(a)(6)条的可驱逐指控不能成立。我们不同意。 在履行证明被申请人可被驱逐的举证责任时，DHS无需证明被申请人知道其投票行为违法。相关联邦法规18 U.S.C. § 611(a)不包含特定意图要求。相反，它是一项一般意图法规，不要求“证明该外国人知道

2 The respondent also voted in an Illinois State primary election on March 21, 2006, which the DHS alleged in the notice to appear as an additional factual basis for her removability under section 237(a)(6) of the Act. However, the Immigration Judge did not address whether the respondent is removable based on her voting in the State primary election, and neither party has raised this issue on appeal. 3 There is an exception to this ground of removability in section 237(a)(6)(B) of the Act, but it does not apply to the respondent and is not at issue in this case.

2 被申请人还于2006年3月21日在伊利诺伊州初选中投票，DHS在出庭通知中将其作为依据该法第237(a)(6)条可被驱逐的额外事实依据提出。然而，移民法官未处理被申请人是否因在州初选中投票而可被驱逐，双方也未在上诉中提出该问题。 3 该法第237(a)(6)(B)条对该驱逐理由规定了例外，但该例外不适用于被申请人，且在本案中不存在争议。

560

560

Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 559 (BIA 2015) Interim Decision #3835

引用为 26 I&N Dec. 559 (BIA 2015) 临时决定第3835号

that it was unlawful for him to vote.” Kimani v. Holder, 695 F.3d 666, 669 (7th Cir. 2012); see also United States v. Knight, 490 F.3d 1268, 1270−71 (11th Cir. 2007) (stating that 18 U.S.C. § 611 is a general intent statute); cf. section 237(a)(6)(A) of the Act (containing no requirement that an alien have knowledge that voting was in violation of law). Since a violation of § 611(a) is a crime of general intent, the only proof required is “that the defendant performed the acts that the law forbids, understanding what he was doing.” Kimani v. Holder, 695 F.3d at 669; see also United States v. Knight, 490 F.3d at 1271.4 The respondent does not dispute that she knew she was not a United States citizen and that she voted in the general election. We therefore conclude that her act of voting in the 2006 election was in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 611(a). The respondent contends, however, that her act of voting falls within the exception to § 611(a). Under the statute, an alien is prohibited from voting in a Federal election unless all three of the following criteria apply:

其投票违法。”Kimani v. Holder, 695 F.3d 666, 669 (7th Cir. 2012)；另见United States v. Knight, 490 F.3d 1268, 1270−71 (11th Cir. 2007)（指出18 U.S.C. § 611为一般意图法规）；参见该法第237(a)(6)(A)条（不要求外国人知道投票违反法律）。 由于违反§ 611(a)属于一般意图犯罪，唯一需要的证明是“被告实施了法律禁止的行为，且理解自己在做什么。”Kimani v. Holder, 695 F.3d at 669；另见United States v. Knight, 490 F.3d at 1271.4 被申请人不争辩她知道自己不是美国公民且她在该大选中投票。因此，我们认定其在2006年选举中的投票行为违反18 U.S.C. § 611(a)。 然而，被申请人主张其投票行为属于§ 611(a)的例外。根据该法规，外国人被禁止在联邦选举中投票，除非以下三项标准全部适用：

(1) the election is held partly for some other purpose; (2) aliens are authorized to vote for such other purpose under a State constitution or statute or a local ordinance; and

(1) 该选举部分为其他目的举行； (2) 外国人依据州宪法或法规或地方条例获准为该其他目的投票；且

(3) voting for such other purpose is conducted independently of voting for a candidate for such Federal offices, in such a manner that an alien has the opportunity to vote for such other purpose, but not an opportunity to vote for a candidate for any one or more of such Federal offices. 18 U.S.C. § 611(a)(1)−(3) (emphasis added).5 The respondent asserts that she falls within the exception in § 611(a)(1) because the election in which she voted was “held partly for some other purpose,” namely, to elect members of the local school board. However,

(3) 为该其他目的投票独立于为上述联邦公职候选人投票进行，其方式使外国人有为该其他目的投票的机会，但没有为上述任何一个或多个联邦公职候选人投票的机会。 18 U.S.C. § 611(a)(1)−(3)（强调为后加）。5 被申请人主张其属于§ 611(a)(1)的例外，因为她所投票的选举“部分为其他目的举行”，即为选举地方学校董事会成员。然而，

4 The respondent has cited McDonald v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 684 (9th Cir. 2005), in support of her contention that a specific intent to violate Federal law is necessary to sustain her removability. However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in whose jurisdiction this case arises, rejected this argument in Kimani v. Holder, 695 F.3d at 669−70. The court distinguished McDonald v. Gonzales because it involved a State statute with different language, which unlike 18 U.S.C. § 611(a), required “proof of an alien’s knowledge that voting [was] forbidden.” Id. In any case, we are not bound by the decision of the Ninth Circuit in this circuit. See Matter of U. Singh, 25 I&N Dec. 670, 672 (BIA 2012). 5 The statute also contains an exception to § 611(a) if “the alien reasonably believed at the time of voting . . . that he or she was United States citizen.” 18 U.S.C. § 611(c)(3). However, the Immigration Judge found that this exception was not applicable because the respondent conceded that she knew she was not a United States citizen at the time she voted.

4 被申请人援引McDonald v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 684 (9th Cir. 2005)，支持其主张：要维持其可被驱逐，必须具有违反联邦法律的特定意图。然而，本案所在管辖区的美国第七巡回上诉法院在Kimani v. Holder, 695 F.3d at 669−70中驳回了该论点。法院区分了McDonald v. Gonzales，因为该案涉及措辞不同的州法规，该法规不同于18 U.S.C. § 611(a)，要求“证明外国人知道投票被禁止。”Id. 无论如何，在本巡回区，我们不受第九巡回法院决定的约束。参见Matter of U. Singh, 25 I&N Dec. 670, 672 (BIA 2012)。 5 该法规还包含§ 611(a)的例外，如果“该外国人在投票时……合理相信自己……是美国公民。”18 U.S.C. § 611(c)(3)。然而，移民法官认定该例外不适用，因为被申请人承认她在投票时知道自己不是美国公民。

561

561

Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 559 (BIA 2015) Interim Decision #3835

引用为 26 I&N Dec. 559 (BIA 2015) 临时决定第3835号

regardless of whether the respondent meets the criterion of § 611(a)(1), the statute requires that all three criteria of § 611(a) be met. The respondent appears to allege that aliens were “authorized to vote for such other purpose,” as required by § 611(a)(2), apparently referring to local school board elections. But she has not identified any legal authority indicating that she was authorized to vote in that local election or that lawful permanent residents were authorized to vote in any election in the State of Illinois. The criterion of § 611(a)(2) has therefore not been satisfied. In any case, the respondent does not claim that the criterion under § 611(a)(3) has been met. The record contains no evidence that voting for local school board officials was conducted independently of voting for candidates for Federal office. Although the respondent argues that she had no control over whether voting for a local school board election was independent of voting for candidates for Federal office, she has not established that voting in the election in which she participated was, in fact, conducted independently. Moreover, the record contains election ballots from the November 2006 general election, which included candidates for both Federal offices and the local school superintendent. The respondent’s concession that she intentionally voted in this election therefore forecloses any claim that she would have had “the opportunity to vote for such other purpose, but not an opportunity to vote for a candidate for any one or more of such Federal offices,” as required by § 611(a)(3). Finally, the respondent asserts that 18 U.S.C. § 611 is overbroad and unconstitutional. However, we have no authority to rule on the constitutionality of the laws enacted by Congress. See Matter of Fuentes-Campos, 21 I&N Dec. 905, 912 (BIA 1997). Because our determination that the respondent is removable under section 237(a)(6)(A) of the Act is dispositive of the appeal, we need not address whether she is also removable under section 237(a)(3)(D). See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25−26 (1976); Matter of J-G-, 26 I&N Dec. 161, 170 (BIA 2013). The respondent has not claimed that she is eligible for any relief from removal. Accordingly, her appeal will be dismissed. ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.

无论被申请人是否符合§ 611(a)(1)的标准，该法规要求§ 611(a)的全部三项标准均须满足。 被申请人似乎主张外国人“获准为该其他目的投票”，如§ 611(a)(2)所要求，显然是指地方学校董事会选举。但她未指明任何法律依据表明她获准在该地方选举中投票，或合法永久居民获准在伊利诺伊州任何选举中投票。因此，§ 611(a)(2)的标准未得到满足。 无论如何，被申请人未主张§ 611(a)(3)下的标准已满足。记录中无证据表明为地方学校董事会官员投票独立于为联邦公职候选人投票进行。尽管被申请人主张她无法控制为地方学校董事会选举投票是否独立于为联邦公职候选人投票，但她未证明其所参与选举中的投票事实上是独立进行的。 此外，记录中包含2006年11月大选的选票，其中既有联邦公职候选人，也有地方学校总监。被申请人承认她有意在该选举中投票，因此排除了任何主张：她本会拥有“为该其他目的投票的机会，但没有为上述任何一个或多个联邦公职候选人投票的机会”，如§ 611(a)(3)所要求。 最后，被申请人主张18 U.S.C. § 611过于宽泛且违宪。然而，我们无权裁定国会颁布的法律的合宪性。参见Matter of Fuentes-Campos, 21 I&N Dec. 905, 912 (BIA 1997)。 由于我们认定被申请人依据该法第237(a)(6)(A)条可被驱逐已足以处理上诉，我们无需处理其是否还依据第237(a)(3)(D)条可被驱逐。参见INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25−26 (1976)；Matter of J-G-, 26 I&N Dec. 161, 170 (BIA 2013)。被申请人未主张其有资格获得任何驱逐救济。因此，其上诉将被驳回。 命令：上诉驳回。

562

562