Ramsoondar v. Holder , 353 F. App'x 845 ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1665
ALANA RAMSOONDAR,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: November 12, 2009 Decided: November 24, 2009
Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jason Lee Pope, BERLIN & ASSOCIATES, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland,
for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, John S.
Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel, Aimee J. Frederickson, Office
of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Alana Ramsoondar, a native and citizen of Trinidad and
Tobago, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) sustaining the Government’s appeal
and finding that she was not eligible for adjustment of status
because she falsely claimed to be a United States citizen in
order to gain employment. We deny the petition for review.
The Immigration and Nationalization Act (“INA”)
§ 212(a)(6)(C)(ii) renders inadmissible “[a]ny alien who falsely
represents . . . herself . . . 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
. . .” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) (2006). For aliens
found to be inadmissible under this section, there is no
available waiver. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1159(c), 1182(a)(6)(C)(iii)
and (i) (2006); see also Pichardo v. INS, 216 F.3d 1198, 1201
(9th Cir. 2000) (“This section is a non-waivable ground of
inadmissibility.”). An alien seeking private sector employment
who falsely claims United States citizenship is seeking a
benefit under the INA. See Theodros v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 396,
400-02 (5th Cir. 2007). In Rodriguez v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 773,
777 (8th Cir. 2008), the court found “that an alien who marks
the ‘citizen or national of the United States’ box on a Form I-9
for the purpose of falsely representing himself as a citizen to
2
secure employment with a private employer has falsely
represented himself for a benefit or purpose under the Act.”
See also Kechkar v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 1080, 1084-85 (10th Cir.
2007).
Ramsoondar had the burden to show she was eligible for
relief from removability. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(2)(A) (2006)
(The burden is on the alien to show she “is clearly and beyond
doubt entitled to be admitted and is not inadmissible under
section 1182 of this title.”). Under 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(d)
(2009):
The respondent shall have the burden of establishing
that . . . she is eligible for any requested benefit
or privilege and that it should be granted in the
exercise of discretion. If the evidence indicates
that one or more of the grounds for mandatory denial
of the application for relief may apply, the alien
shall have the burden of proving by a preponderance of
the evidence that such grounds do not apply.
Substantial evidence supports the finding that
Ramsoondar’s testimony indicated she falsely claimed to be a
United States citizen in order to be employed and is thus
ineligible for any waiver. Ramsoondar failed in her burden to
show she did not falsely claim to be a citizen in order to
receive a benefit under the INA. Factual findings by the Board
“are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be
compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C.
3
§ 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006). We find the record does not compel a
contrary factual finding.
We further find the record does not support
Ramsoondar’s claim that she was otherwise eligible for
employment authorization when she falsely claimed to be a United
States citizen.
Accordingly, because substantial evidence supports the
Board’s finding and leads to the conclusion that Ramsoondar
falsely claimed United States citizenship in order to gain
employment, a benefit under the INA, we deny the petition for
review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
PETITION DENIED
4