Pichardo v. INS, 98-70759

Citation216 F.3d 1198
Decision Date07 July 2000
Docket NumberNo. 98-70759,98-70759
PartiesErwin PICHARDO, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)

Willie M. Jordan-Curtis, Ph.D., J.D., Assistant Dean for Student Affairs, Darlene C. Chavez, Galen NAU, and Lara A. Shingly, Law Students, University of Arizona, College of Law, Legal Clinic (Pro Bono), Tucson, Arizona, for the petitioner.

Marion E. Guyton, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for the respondent.

Before: LAY,1 PREGERSON and

HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

LAY, Circuit Judge:

The court's opinion filed September 7, 1999, and reported at 188 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir. 1999), is vacated and withdrawn.

With the filing of this opinion, the panel now affirms the Board of Immigration Appeals' finding that Pichardo was inadmissible under the Immigration and Nationality Act in light of his conviction for making a false claim to United States citizenship.

OPINION

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 40(a), the panel hereby grants the government's petition for rehearing, withdraws the previous panel opinion dated September 7, 1999, and substitutes the following opinion.

Erwin Pichardo ("Pichardo"), a citizen of Nicaragua, appeals from a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA" or "Board") upholding an Immigration Judge's ("IJ") finding that he was inadmissible and subject to removal from the United States. The BIA articulated two grounds to support its holding: first, a finding that the immigration officer knew or had reason to believe Pichardo was a drug trafficker under the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA") section 212(a)(2)(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(C); second, Pichardo's conviction for misrepresenting that he was a citizen of the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 911.

We now affirm the Board's decision finding Pichardo inadmissible on the basis of his conviction for falsely claiming citizenship. See INA § 212(a)(6)(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii). Because this issue is dispositive of Pichardo's admissibility status, this court need not reach the issue of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(C).

Factual and Procedural Background

Pichardo came to the United States when he was eleven years old, after fleeing Nicaragua with his mother. He has been living in the United States for over twelve years. He has a job as well as a wife and two children who are all United States citizens. On June 13, 1997, Pichardo, his wife, and some friends, including a man named Carlos, traveled from Los Angeles to Mexicali, Mexico to go shopping. The group traveled in Carlos' van. According to Pichardo, while shopping at a mall, Carlos left the group and later returned with people he described as family members. He informed Pichardo that he wished to go with his "family," and asked Pichardo if he would drive the van back to Los Angeles. Pichardo agreed. When Pichardo crossed the border into the United States, inspectors found 126.45 pounds of marijuana hidden in the paneling of the van. Pichardo also attempted to use a false birth certificate to cross the border. Pichardo claimed that he did not know that Carlos was involved with drugs or that the marijuana was in the van. He was arrested on drug charges which were subsequently dropped. He did, however, plead guilty on August 29, 1997, to making a false claim of United States citizenship in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 911.2

On June 14, 1997, the Immigration and Naturalization Service ("INS") commenced proceedings to remove Pichardo from the United States by issuing a Notice to Appear. The Notice stated that Pichardo was removable pursuant to INA § 212(a)(2)(C) as an alien who was reasonably believed to be a drug trafficker. Pichardo's removal hearing commenced on September 9, 1997, at which time Pichardo requested time to obtain an attorney and the proceeding was continued to October 2, 1997. Upon commencement of the October 2 proceeding, the INS lodged an additional charge asserting that Pichardo was removable pursuant to INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(ii) for falsely claiming United States citizenship.

On October 27, 1997, the IJ heard the merits of Pichardo's case and found him excludable for illicit drug trafficking and for a false claim to citizenship. After this ruling, the proceedings were again continued to determine Pichardo's asylum claim. On December 1, 1997, the IJ rendered an oral decision denying the asylum claim and reiterating his findings from the previous hearing that Pichardo was inadmissible because an immigration officer reasonably believed that he was a drug trafficker and because of his "misleading claim to citizenship."

Pichardo appealed the IJ's decision to the BIA and it affirmed. The BIA held that "the Immigration Judge correctly decided that Pichardo failed to meet his burden of establishing that he was admissible under any provision of the INA." In so holding, the Board noted that Pichardo admitted using a false birth certificate when trying to enter the United States and that he pleaded guilty to making a false claim to citizenship. Further, while noting that the drug charges against Pichardo were dropped, the Board pointed out that section 212(a)(2)(C) does not require a conviction, but instead requires only that the "immigration officer know or have reason to believe that the alien is or has been an illicit trafficker in controlled substances...." The Board also affirmed the denial of Pichardo's asylum claim.

Discussion

Pichardo argues that the BIA erred when it sustained the IJ's findings that he was inadmissible and that he failed to meet his burden of establishing admissibility under any provision of the INA.

We have jurisdiction over this final removal order under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). See Yang v. INS, 109 F.3d 1185, 1192 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, Katsoulis v. INS, 522 U.S. 1027, 118 S.Ct. 624, 139 L.Ed.2d 605 (1997).3

This court's review is generally limited to the decision of the BIA, except to the extent that it has adopted the decision of the IJ. See Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1430 (9th Cir. 1995). Pure questions of law regarding the requirements of the INA are reviewed de novo, while the Board's interpretation and application of the law are entitled to deference. See Coronado-Durazo v. INS, 123 F.3d 1322, 1324 (9th Cir. 1997). Furthermore, "a decision that an alien is not eligible for admission to the United States is conclusive unless manifestly contrary to law...." 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(C). Critically, in removal proceedings, the alien has the burden of establishing that he is "clearly and beyond doubt entitled to be admitted and is not inadmissible under section 1182 of this title ...." 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(2)(A).

In the instant case, the original administrative record was unclear as to whether the charge leveled against Pichardo at the October 2 proceeding was for misrepresentation under INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(i) or for falsely claiming citizenship under INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(ii). The charging document is now before the court and clarifies that Pichardo was charged under section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii).4 Additionally, the transcripts of the removal hearings on October 2 and 27 reveal that Pichardo was aware of the specific charge and was served with the document. INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(ii), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii) provides: "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 ... is inadmissible." This section is a non-waivable ground of inadmissibility. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(iii), 1182(i).5

It is undisputed that on August 29, 1997, Pichardo pleaded guilty to making a false...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Njai v. U.S., CR 02-0050-PHX-SMM.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Arizona
    • 16 Abril 2007
    ...showing that he is "admissible to the United States for permanent residence." 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) (2005 & Supp. 2006); Pichardo v. INS, 216 F.3d 1198, 1200 (9th Cir.2000) (explaining that an alien in removal proceedings "has the burden of establishing that he is clearly and beyond doubt enti......
  • Castro v. Attorney Gen. of the United States
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • 14 Febrero 2012
    ...by implication, the bar to admissibility in § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii) cannot be waived by the Attorney General. Pichardo v. INS, 216 F.3d 1198, 1201 & n. 5 (9th Cir.2000). To avoid this unwaivable bar, Castro challenges the BIA's factual determination that he stated that he was born in Puerto Ric......
  • Valadez-munoz v. Holder Jr, 06-72510.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • 28 Octubre 2010
    ...that he is “entitled to be admitted and is not inadmissible under section 1182.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(2)(A); see also Pichardo v. INS, 216 F.3d 1198, 1200 (9th Cir.2000) (same). Beyond that, “a decision that an alien is not eligible for admission to the United States is conclusive unless man......
  • Rodriguez v. Gonzales, Docket No. 05-4521-ag.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • 7 Junio 2006
    ...section 1542 precludes him from claiming that he did not knowingly submit false information to obtain a passport. See Pichardo v. INS, 216 F.3d 1198, 1201 (9th Cir.2000) (holding that pleading guilty to making a false claim of United States citizenship in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 911 for us......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT