Case: 17-10636 Date Filed: 03/06/2019 Page: 1 of 26 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 17-10636 ________________________ Agency No. A072-565-851 PANKAJKUMAR S. PATEL, JYOTSNABEN P. PATEL, NISHANTKUMAR PATEL, Petitioners, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (March 6, 2019) Case: 17-10636 Date Filed: 03/06/2019 Page: 2 of 26 Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges. TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge: This case presents interesting, and rather complicated, questions of statutory interpretation. Pankajkumar Patel, an immigrant facing removal, asks us to review a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals. The Board held that Patel is inadmissible, and thus cannot get relief from removal, because he falsely represented himself as a citizen when applying for a Georgia driver’s license. The relevant statute provides that an alien is inadmissible if he falsely represents himself as a U.S. citizen “for any purpose or benefit” under the law. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I). Under the Board’s previous interpretation of the statute, an alien is inadmissible only if he makes the false representation with the intent to obtain the purpose or benefit, and if the false representation is material to the purpose or benefit sought. Matter of Richmond, 26 I. & N. Dec. 779, 786–87 (BIA 2016). Patel argues that he simply checked the wrong box, and that citizenship did not affect the application. His case presents two questions. First, whether we have jurisdiction to review Patel’s claim that, as a factual matter, he checked the wrong box and thus lacked the requisite subjective intent to trigger the statute. Second, whether we must defer to the Board’s interpretation in 2 Case: 17-10636 Date Filed: 03/06/2019 Page: 3 of 26 Richmond, finding a materiality element in the statute. The answer to both is, we do not. I. Patel came to the United States from India. He entered the country without inspection. Consequently, the Department of Homeland Security issued a notice to appear to Patel charging him as removable for being present in the United States without inspection. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) (“An alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled . . . is inadmissible.”). Patel conceded removability, but he sought discretionary relief from removal by applying for adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i). Section 1255 permits an alien who entered without inspection to obtain relief from removal if, among other things, the alien is the beneficiary of a labor certification. See § 1255(i)(1)(B)(ii). Patel was a valid beneficiary, because he had an approved I- 140 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker.1 The Attorney General may adjust an alien’s status to lawful permanent resident if the alien meets certain requirements. See § 1255(i); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1245.10(b) (listing the eligibility requirements for an alien who entered without 1 His wife, Jyotsnaben Patel, and son, Nishantkumar Patel, are also parties to this appeal. They too are subject to removal for entering the country ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals