FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EFRAÍN RAMÍREZ MUÑOZ, No. 21-70431 Petitioner, Agency No. A022-446-571 v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney OPINION General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted December 5, 2022 San Francisco, California Filed June 26, 2023 Before: Jacqueline H. Nguyen and Jennifer Sung, Circuit Judges, and Joseph F. Bataillon,* District Judge. Opinion by Judge Nguyen * The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska, sitting by designation. 2 RAMÍREZ MUÑOZ V. GARLAND SUMMARY** Immigration Granting Efraín Ramírez Muñoz’s petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, and remanding, the panel concluded that Ramírez’s misrepresentations about his citizenship to police officers for the purpose of avoiding removal proceedings did not render him inadmissible and therefore ineligible for adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) for falsely claiming U.S. citizenship “for any purpose or benefit under” federal or state law. During two arrests for driving under the influence of alcohol, Ramírez falsely presented himself as a U.S. citizen. The BIA found him barred from adjusting status under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I), which renders inadmissible “[a]ny 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 . . . Federal or State law.” The BIA, relying on In re Richmond, 26 I. & N. Dec. 779 (B.I.A. 2016), concluded that § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) applied because Ramírez lied about his citizenship “for the purpose of avoiding removal proceedings.” The panel explained that the key question was what it means for a purpose or benefit to be “under” federal or state law. The BIA concluded that this means that a false claim must be made to achieve a purpose or obtain a benefit that is “governed by” federal or state law. The panel concluded ** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. RAMÍREZ MUÑOZ V. GARLAND 3 that the BIA’s interpretation was untenable, agreeing with the Third Circuit that that its construction was unmoored from the purposes and concerns of the statute. The panel explained that the BIA’s interpretation was incoherent in that it bestowed “under” with two different meanings at once, as if the statute read: “for any purpose of the alien related to any law or any benefit provided by any law. The panel also concluded that the BIA’s interpretation was unreasonably broad, explaining that it encompassed lying about one’s citizenship with a purpose of avoiding removal proceedings regardless of whether the lie’s recipient had a legal obligation to obtain citizenship information and report suspected undocumented persons to the immigration authorities. Rather, the statute would apply when an individual lies about his citizenship to anyone at all to minimize the risk of being detected by immigration authorities. The panel concluded that the statutory …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals