Dakura v. Holder, 13–2246.
| Citation | 772 F.3d 994 |
| Decision Date | 24 November 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 13–2246.,13–2246. |
| Parties | Raymond DAKURA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit) |
ARGUED:Alfred Lincoln Robertson, Jr., Robertson Law Office, PLLC, Alexandria, Virginia, for Petitioner. Erica Miles, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. ON BRIEF:Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Emily Anne Radford, Assistant Director, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before MOTZ, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition for review denied by published opinion. Judge KING wrote the opinion, in which Judge MOTZ and Judge KEENAN joined.
Raymond Dakura, a native of Ghana in West Africa, petitions for review of the September 13, 2013 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the denial of his application for adjustment of status (the “BIA Decision”).1 As explained below, we agree with the BIA that an alien—like Dakura—who falsely claims United States citizenship in seeking private employment is inadmissible as a matter of law under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) (the “false claim bar”). We therefore deny Dakura's petition for review.
Dakura entered the United States on January 16, 2008, pursuant to a nonimmigrant F–1 student visa. Dakura overstayed his visa by remaining in this country after he lost his status as a student.2 On August 5, 2009, the Department of Homeland Security (the “DHS”) issued Dakura a notice to appear, thereby instituting removal proceedings against him. The evidence submitted in those proceedings is summarized below.
Upon entering the United States from Ghana, Dakura was enrolled as a student at Lindenwood University in Missouri. His uncle, who was paying Dakura's tuition and acting as his sponsor, soon passed away. Because Dakura was unable to afford college tuition and related expenses, he withdrew from the university, though he hoped to return later, once he secured the necessary resources. At the time, Dakura was without any means of supporting himself. Dakura met a man in Missouri who arranged for Dakura to see Francis Assamoir in northern Virginia. In March 2008, Dakura relocated to Virginia, where he entered into a support agreement with Assamoir. Pursuant thereto, Dakura agreed to work and give his earnings to Assamoir, who was to provide Dakura with housing, calling cards, and living expenses.
In order to fulfill his part of the support agreement with Assamoir, Dakura had to obtain employment. His immigration status, however, posed a serious obstacle. The Immigration and Nationality Act (the “INA”) requires a job-seeker to verify that he is either a United States citizen or a national of this country, and thus authorized to be employed. See 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(a) -(b). Dakura bypassed that roadblock by using the identities of two American citizens—Emmanuel Nicholas Habib and Solomon Soehedey—to establish his eligibility for employment at McDonald's and Target. In each instance, Dakura sought employment by executing the DHS's Employment Eligibility Verification Form I–9 (a “Form I–9”), as required by federal law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(b)(1)-(2), 8 C.F.R. § 274a.2. Therein, Dakura used Habib's and Soehedey's identities at McDonald's and Target, marking and signing Forms I–9 to attest, under penalty of perjury, that he was a “citizen or national of the United States.” J.A. 101.
Dakura continued in his arrangement with Assamoir for approximately a year. Dakura eventually balked, however, upon realizing that the plan would not work, in that he was not earning or saving enough money to re-enroll at Lindenwood University. Dakura thus decided to terminate the arrangement with Assamoir, and so advised him. Assamoir responded by reporting Dakura to the authorities. As a result, Dakura was arrested and charged with several counts of identity theft and forgery for using false identities in seeking jobs with McDonald's and Target. Those charges were ultimately dismissed, but they resulted in the DHS instituting removal proceedings.
At a master calendar hearing in the immigration court on May 12, 2010, Dakura conceded the allegations made in the notice to appear. In August 2010, while his removal proceedings were pending, Dakura married a woman who was already a United States citizen. On October 5, 2010, Dakura's wife petitioned the DHS for recognition of their marriage, seeking a visa for Dakura. Upon approval of the visa petition, Dakura applied to the DHS for adjustment of his status to that of a lawful permanent resident (the “adjustment application”). On March 26, 2012, an evidentiary hearing was conducted on the adjustment application.
The BIA Decision of September 13, 2013, affirmed the IJ Decision in all respects. First, the BIA ruled that the IJ had correctly determined that Dakura was inadmissible under the false claim bar, reasoning that “an alien who falsely claims United States citizenship on a Form I–9 is seeking a ‘benefit’ under the [INA].” BIA Decision 2. Second, the BIA accorded no weight to Dakura's position that he had completed the Forms I–9 under duress, observing that Dakura “submitted no evidence in support of this claim.” Id. Third, the BIA reasoned that the fact that Dakura was not convicted of identity theft was not pertinent, because “a conviction is unnecessary to support a finding of inadmissibility” under the INA. Id. Thus, the BIA affirmed the IJ Decision and rejected Dakura's appeal.
Dakura has petitioned for our review of the BIA Decision. We possess jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
Where, as here, the BIA has adopted an IJ decision and issued its own decision, we review both rulings. See Jian Tao Lin v. Holder, 611 F.3d 228, 235 (4th Cir.2010). The BIA's determination 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). We review legal issues de novo. See Djadjou v. Holder, 662 F.3d 265, 273 (4th Cir.2011). We review an IJ's findings of fact for substantial evidence, accepting such findings as conclusive unless a reasonable adjudicator would have been compelled to reach a different conclusion. See id.
By his petition for review, Dakura contends that the BIA Decision erred as a matter of law in ruling that an alien who falsely claims citizenship on a Form I–9 is inadmissible under the false claim bar. While recognizing that the legal authorities—including decisions of our sister circuits and our own unpublished decisions—cut strongly against that argument, Dakura maintains that private employment is not an immigration benefit within the meaning of the false claim bar. Dakura alternatively urges that the false claim bar is not applicable in these proceedings because his use of other identities did not constitute direct claims of citizenship, he did not obtain an immigration benefit, and all misrepresentations about his identity were made under duress.
The central question before us is whether an alien who falsely claims citizenship on a Form I–9 is thereby rendered inadmissible pursuant to the false claim bar. As explained below, we are satisfied to answer that question in the affirmative.5
The INA requires that, in order for an alien to adjust his status to that of a lawful permanent resident, he must be admissible. See 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a). The alien bears the burden of proving that he “clearly and beyond doubt ... is not inadmissible under [8 U.S.C. § ] 1182.” Id. § 1229a(c)(2)(A); see also Hashmi v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 700, 702 (8th Cir.2008) (). Section 1182 identifies several bars under which aliens are legally “inadmissible” and thus “ineligible to be admitted to the United States,” including situations implicating the false claim bar, where an alien makes a false claim of United States citizenship.
As relevant here, the false claim bar provides that an alien who falsely represents himself “to be a citizen of the United States for any purpose or benefit under this chapter (including section 1324a of this title) or any other Federal or State law is inadmissible.” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I).6 If an alien is...
To continue reading
Request your trial