PINZON
26 I. & N. Dec. 189 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An alien who enters the United States by falsely claiming U.S. citizenship is not deemed to have been inspected and is therefore not lawfully 'admitted' under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Furthermore, a conviction for knowingly making a materially false statement to the U.S. government to obtain a passport, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2), constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude.
Facts:
- Patricia Pinzon, a native and citizen of Venezuela, first entered the United States in 1982 on a student visa.
- In 1985, Pinzon applied for and obtained a United States passport by presenting a false birth certificate from Florida.
- Pinzon also falsely represented herself as a United States citizen when she registered to vote.
- In 1997, Pinzon renewed the fraudulently obtained passport by mail.
- On August 20, 2001, Pinzon last entered the United States by presenting the fraudulent U.S. passport at a port of entry.
- In November 2002, Pinzon was convicted of knowingly and willfully making false statements to the Department of State for the purpose of obtaining a passport.
Procedural Posture:
- The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) initiated removal proceedings against Patricia Pinzon in an Immigration Court.
- The Immigration Judge sustained the charges of removability, finding Pinzon inadmissible for being convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, being present without admission, and making a false claim to U.S. citizenship.
- The Immigration Judge pretermitted Pinzon's application for cancellation of removal, finding her conviction made her statutorily ineligible.
- The Immigration Judge granted Pinzon's request for voluntary departure.
- Pinzon (appellant) appealed the Immigration Judge's decision on removability and the moral turpitude finding to the Board of Immigration Appeals.
- The DHS (cross-appellant) appealed the Immigration Judge's grant of voluntary departure to the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the offense of knowingly and willfully making a materially false statement to obtain a United States passport, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2), a crime involving moral turpitude?
Opinions:
Majority - Board Member Grant
Yes. The offense of knowingly making a materially false statement to a government agency in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2) is a crime involving moral turpitude. The court reasoned that the statute requires proof of a specific intent to deceive or mislead, as interpreted by the Eleventh Circuit where the case arose. The offense also requires that the false statement be 'materially' false, meaning it has a natural tendency to influence or is capable of influencing a government agency. The court has long held that crimes involving fraud, dishonesty, or the impairment of government functions through deceit are crimes involving moral turpitude. Additionally, the court affirmed the long-standing rule that an alien who enters the U.S. by falsely claiming citizenship evades the proper inspection process and, therefore, cannot be considered to have been lawfully 'admitted' under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legal consequences of two distinct but related fraudulent acts in immigration law. First, it reaffirms the principle from Reid v. INS that a false claim to U.S. citizenship at entry vitiates the inspection process, preventing the entry from being a lawful 'admission' necessary for certain immigration benefits. Second, it provides a clear categorical rule that a conviction under the modern, post-1996 version of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2) is a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT). This holding is significant because a CIMT conviction is a bar to many forms of relief from removal, such as cancellation of removal, making it a powerful tool for the government in removal proceedings against non-citizens who have engaged in such fraud.
