Espinoza-Espinoza v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, ESPINOZA-ESPINOZ

Citation554 F.2d 921
Decision Date18 May 1977
Docket NumberNo. 76-1378,P,ESPINOZA-ESPINOZ,76-1378
PartiesAtanasioetitioner, v. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)

Leland G. Ripley, Evergreen Legal Services, Seattle, Wash., submitted briefs for petitioner.

Lawrence Walton Chamblee, Atty. Criminal Division, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., Robert M. Taylor, U. S. Atty., Seattle, Wash., Richard L. Thornburgh, Asst. Atty. Gen., Crim. Div., U. S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Brian H. Simpson, Immigration and Nat. Service, San Francisco, Cal., Bernard S. Karmiol, Regional Counsel, Immigration and Nat. Service, San Pedro, Cal., Joseph M. Swing, Dist. Director, Immigration and Nat. Service, Seattle, Wash., Philip Wilens, Acting Chief Govt. Reg. and Labor Crim. Div., U. S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., submitted briefs for respondent.

On Petition to Review a Decision of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Before: CHOY and KENNEDY, Circuit Judges, and FERGUSON, * District judge.

CHOY, Circuit Judge:

Atanasio Espinoza-Espinoza has petitioned this court for review of a final order of deportation. He challenges the order on two grounds: (1) He received insufficient notice of the facts on which his deportability was premised; and (2) the Immigration and Naturalization Service (the INS) did not prove an element of the charge, i. e., the willfulness of an admittedly material misrepresentation by petitioner on his visa application. We affirm.

Background

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, married Hermelinda Gutierrez Morfin in Mexico in 1957, and is the father of her six children. In 1968, petitioner and Hermelinda were separated, and petitioner entered the United States to seek employment. In late 1968 or early 1969, he claims, he received a letter from a friend stating that his wife was intending to obtain a divorce. Without ascertaining whether she had done so, in 1970 he married Mary K. Mincher, an American citizen, who petitioned the INS for an immigrant visa for him. In November 1971, petitioner was interviewed for a visa at the American Consulate in Tijuana, Mexico, and he signed a sworn declaration in which he stated: "Including my present marriage, I have been married one time." He also declared, in the same document, that he had no children under the age of 21. Both of these statements were false.

Petitioner lived with his American wife for about two years and then divorced her in Yakima, Washington. Subsequently, he petitioned for allowance of the immigration of Hermelinda and his six children, stating that he had married Hermelinda subsequently to his divorce from Mary Mincher. At the time of petitioner's deportability hearing, Hermelinda and the six children were in the United States illegally.

The INS filed an order to show cause against petitioner, charging that he was deportable under § 241(a)(1) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (the I.N.A.) (8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(1)), in that he was excludable at time of entry under § 212(a)(19) of the I.N.A. (8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(19)) because he had procured a visa by fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact. A hearing was held before an immigration judge, and the INS introduced the visa application and an investigative report concerning petitioner. The only witness was petitioner, who testified that in 1971, when he applied for an immigrant visa, he thought that Hermelinda had divorced him; therefore, he stated on the visa application that he was presently married and had only been married once. With regard to his declaration that he had no children, petitioner testified that he thought that since Hermelinda had custody of them, he could deny that he had any. On appeal, petitioner admits that his statements were false and material.

The immigration judge found that petitioner clearly was not eligible for the visa which he obtained in 1971 since he could not be validly married to Mary Mincher at the same time as he was married to Hermelinda. The judge also found that petitioner had willfully lied to the consul about his marital and familial status, and that the charge in the order to show cause had been sustained by evidence which was clear, convincing, and unequivocal. Therefore, he ordered that petitioner be deported to Mexico. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the immigration judge's decision without an opinion, and this appeal followed.

Sufficiency of Notice of Charge

Petitioner first argues that the immigration judge erred in denying his motion to make more definite and certain a factual allegation contained in the order to show cause. The INS based its charge on seven factual allegations, which read as follows:

1. You are not a citizen or national of the United States.

2. You are a native of Mexico and a citizen of Mexico.

3. You entered the United States at San Ysidro, California on or about 11-4-71.

4. You are admitted to the United States as an immediate relative immigrant upon presentation of an immigrant visa issued to you on the basis of your relationship to a United States citizen.

5. In obtaining your immigrant visa you claimed to be a spouse of a citizen of the United States.

6. At that time you were not the spouse of a United States citizen.

7. You falsely claimed to be the spouse of a citizen of the United States and your visa was procurred (sic ) by fraud or by wilfully misrepresenting a material fact.

The immigration judge felt that allegation No. 7 was "argumentative and a conclusion rather than a statement of fact" and, therefore, did not require petitioner to plead to it.

Petitioner suggests that allegation No. 7 failed to allege any facts, but instead simply stated a legal conclusion. The statement, according to petitioner, gave inadequate notice of the factual basis for the charge and therefore rendered the deportation order defective. He relies on § 242(b) of the I.N.A. (8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)), which requires that the alien must "be given notice, reasonable under all the circumstances, of the nature of the charge . . . ."

In response, the INS argues that petitioner demonstrated that he understood the nature of the charge, and that, even if allegation No. 7 is completely ignored, the other allegations gave adequate notice. We agree. The first six allegations clearly were sufficient to inform petitioner of the precise basis for the charge. Allegation No. 5 stated that petitioner had obtained his visa by claiming to be a spouse of an American citizen; No. 6 averred that, at the time of the visa application, he was not in fact married to an American citizen. An amended charge indicated that deportability would be based on fraud or willful misrepresentation in the procurement of the visa. Since the immigration judge did not require that petitioner plead to the seventh allegation contained in the order to show cause, it does not appear to us that the presence of the allegation prejudiced petitioner. Therefore, his first argument fails.

Willful Misrepresentation

Petitioner next contends that the INS failed to establish a prima facie case that he was excludable under 212(a)(19) of the I.N.A. (8 U.S.C. § 1182(a) (19)). This subsection mandates the exclusion of "(a)ny alien who seeks to procure, or has sought to procure, or has procured a visa or other documentation, or seeks to enter the United States, by fraud, or by willfully misrepresenting a material fact." While admitting that the visa application contained misrepresentations of material facts, petitioner argues that the INS did not prove by "clear, convincing and unequivocal evidence," Woodby v. United States, 385 U.S. 276, 286, 87 S.Ct. 483, 17 L.Ed.2d 362 (1966), that he willfully made those misrepresentations. The INS argues in turn that the standard of appellate review in this type of case is whether the findings below are supported by substantial evidence. The INS further suggests that the record as a whole supports the finding of willfulness.

With regard to the standard of review on appeal, this court has held that the test is whether "the agency's order is supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole." Trias-Hernandez v....

To continue reading

Request your trial
35 cases
  • United States v. Eguilos
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • 16 Abril 2019
    ...concealment of a material fact is done willfully if it was done deliberately and voluntarily. See Espinoza-Espinoza v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 554 F.2d 921, 925 (9th Cir. 1977). "[T]he test of whether concealments or misrepresentations were material is whether they had a natural......
  • Parlak v. Holder
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • 24 Agosto 2009
    ...of the falsity of the representation will suffice. See [i]d.; Forbes v. INS, 48 F.3d 439, 442 (9th Cir.1995); Espinoza-Espinoza v. INS, 554 F.2d 921, 925 (9th Cir.1977). 187 F.3d at 330 (emphasis in original). As the dissent concedes, this is also the current position of the BIA, and indeed......
  • United States v. Charles
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • 22 Abril 2020
    ...that does not accord with the facts." United States v. Hirani, 824 F.3d 741, 749 (8th Cir. 2016) (citing Espinoza-Espinoza v. I.N.S., 554 F.2d 921, 925 (9th Cir. 1977) ); see Parlak, 578 F.3d at 463. In Hirani, the applicant's false representation of his name, under penalty of perjury, demo......
  • United States v. Salama
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • 24 Julio 2012
    ...even if the INS has not shown that an alien intended to deceive the government. Arango, 670 F.3d at 994–995 (citing Espinoza–Espinoza v. INS, 554 F.2d 921, 925 (9th Cir.1977)). The term ‘willful’ in the relevant immigration statute has not been well developed. However, when the Supreme Cour......
  • 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