United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-1400 ___________________________ Christine Chernosky lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III, Attorney General of the United States lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: May 17, 2018 Filed: July 26, 2018 ____________ Before SHEPHERD, KELLY, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ KELLY, Circuit Judge. Canadian citizen Christine Chernosky petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) denial of her application for adjustment of status. We deny her petition for review. I. In January 2004, Chernosky entered the United States on a six-month, non- immigrant visitor visa. She applied for a Minnesota driver’s license, using an application form that included a section that allowed applicants to register to vote by checking three boxes: (1) stating the applicant is a United States citizen; (2) who will be at least 18 by the next election; and (3) requesting to be registered to vote. The voter-registration section also required an additional signature certifying that the applicant was a United States citizen. Chernosky did not check any of the boxes or certify that she was a United States citizen. Nevertheless, Minnesota officials registered her to vote, and mailed her a voter registration card, which assigned her a voter number and provided information about her polling place. Chernosky then voted in the 2004 election. As a Canadian citizen, she was not eligible to do so. She also overstayed her visa. After the government initiated removal proceedings, Chernosky admitted she was removable because she had overstayed her visa, but denied being removable based on her 2004 vote.1 She also applied for adjustment of status under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), alleging abuse by her American ex-husband, but the government denied her application. In the government’s view, Chernosky knowingly violated federal and state election laws when she voted, which rendered her inadmissible to the United States and precluded her from obtaining VAWA relief. In response, Chernosky sought to invoke “entrapment by estoppel,” a defense that can be “available to someone who makes complete and accurate representations to a public official and then receives permission from that official, when acting within 1 In this appeal, Chernosky challenges the immigration judge’s determination that she is removable based on her 2004 vote. We need not reach that issue, however, because she does not dispute that she is removable based on her overstay. -2- the scope of his or her authority.”2 Fitzpatrick v. Sessions, 847 F.3d 913, 915 (7th Cir. 2017). In other words, “[w]hen a public official directs a person to perform an act, with assurance that the act is lawful under the circumstances, the person does not act with the intent required for conviction.” Kimani v. Holder, 695 F.3d 666, 670 (7th Cir. 2012). According to Chernosky, she did not knowingly vote in violation of any law because Minnesota officials had misled her into believing she could vote when they sent her the voter registration card. In Minnesota, voters ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals