I-9 Issues for PR

trialanderror83

Registered Users (C)
I have had lots of Im's from people in regards to this "I-9" issue from a former post for a guy named IM_Help. The link to his issues below..

http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=272177&page=2&highlight=Im_help

This guy checked the "Almighty I-9" "US citizen", " US National box", and was worried for the AOS interview. Those of you who are worried about the "I-9" being an issue, please read below and don't worry! And please NO IRA links to the few who always post them...You know who you are. Once again what happens in real life is different than what the "INA Link" says.

Link to story below...

http://www.nilc.org/immsemplymnt/ircaempverif/irca058.htm

The TSC recognizes the distinction between “citizen and national” of the United States. The TSC will continue to favorably adjudicate otherwise approvable 485 [green card] applications where the alien has checked the referenced “citizen or national” block of the I-9 unless there is other specific evidence of a false claim to US citizen


Also Read Below ..........

"False Claim To US Citizenship On I-9"

IMMIGRANTS & EMPLOYMENT

IRCA Employment Verification and
Antidiscrimination Protections


9TH CIRCUIT VACATES NONCITIZEN’S CRIMINAL CONVICTION FOR FALSE CLAIM TO U.S. CITIZENSHIP ON I-9 FORM
Immigrants' Rights Update, Vol. 18, No. 7, November 8, 2004

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently vacated the criminal conviction of a worker who had been convicted of falsely claiming to be a U.S. citizen because, in the process of completing an I‑9 employment eligibility verification form, he had checked the box next to the statement, “I attest, under penalty of perjury, that I am . . . [a] citizen or national of the United States.”

Ali Abdulati Karaouni, a Lebanese national who entered the U.S. in 1992 and whose authorization to stay and work here expired in Jan. 1994, had been arrested in Sept. 2002 by an agent of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, who also seized documents belonging to Karaouni and interrogated him. Subsequently, Karaouni was arraigned on charges relating to an I‑9 form he had filled out in July 1998 when he was hired by St. Agnes Medical Center in Fresno, CA, on which he had attested to being a citizen or national of the U.S. The count that Karaouni was tried for and ultimately convicted of was willfully making a false claim to being a U.S. citizen in violation of 18 USC sec. 911. In June 2003, after a two-day trial, the court sentenced him to three months in prison. Because Karaouni had been incarcerated since his arrest, the court credited him for the time he had served, and he was immediately deported to Lebanon.

Karaouni appealed his criminal conviction to the Ninth Circuit, contending that the evidence that had been presented against him was insufficient to support his conviction because no rational juror could find beyond a reasonable doubt that, by checking the box on the I‑9 form, Karaouni had made a claim to be a U.S. citizen, as opposed to a U.S. national.

In its decision, the Ninth Circuit noted that there are three essential elements of a sec. 911 violation. In Karaouni’s case, the government had the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt (1) that Karaouni had made a false claim of U.S. citizenship, (2) that his misrepresentation was willful (i.e., voluntary and deliberate), and (3) that it was conveyed to someone with good reason to inquire into his citizenship status. The issue on appeal concerned the first element.

It was undisputed that Karaouni was not a U.S. citizen in July 1998, when he filled out the I‑9 form and checked the attestation box. However, Karaouni pointed out that the statement printed on the I‑9 form next to the box he checked is phrased in the disjunctive and that therefore no rational juror could find beyond a reasonable doubt that he was claiming to be a U.S. citizen and not a U.S. national.

The court found the syntactic structure of the phrase to be critical, because the legal definitions of a U.S. national and a U.S. citizen are distinct. The court also found that the plain language of 18 USC sec. 911 provides only that a false claim to U.S. citizenship is a crime. Therefore, the court concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support Karaouni’s conviction. In doing so, it found that the trial court “violated a basic principle of criminal law by allowing the government to prove that an individual committed the charge offense by showing that he committed either that offense or some other act.” The court reversed Karaouni’s conviction, holding that his answer on the I‑9 form cannot constitute an offense under sec. 911 because Karaouni merely attested that he was a U.S. citizen or a U.S. national, and a claim to U.S. nationality, even if false, does not violate sec. 911.

U.S. v. Karaouni, 379 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 2004).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So now we know how the 9th circuit court (AK, AZ, CA, GU, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR, WA) and the TSC (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas) interpret the "false claims to US citizenship" as it relates to I-9 forms.

What about those who live in the other states? Individual district office policies? Without a USCIS memo clarifying the issue I'd still be careful about this.
 
So now we know how the 9th circuit court (AK, AZ, CA, GU, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR, WA) and the TSC (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas) interpret the "false claims to US citizenship" as it relates to I-9 forms.

What about those who live in the other states? Individual district office policies? Without a USCIS memo clarifying the issue I'd still be careful about this.

Well Austriacus, If the TSC can do it, then I would expect they would all have to, and know about it. If it were me, and I was getting crap about the "False US Citizen Claim On The I-9" from the IO at the interview, simple refer to the case.... U.S. v. Karaouni, 379 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 2004). That would be my defense. I really think people shouldn't have to worry about the I-9 anymore, it's a dead issue that USCIS knows they can't win with a competent lawyer. voteing however, I would worry about!


Married to US Citizen November 11, 2006.
Re-date for I-485, I-130, I-765, 12-11-06
NOA- I-485, I-130, I-765- 12-14
RFE I-485- 12-26
Biometrics(code 3)- done 01-29-07
RFE Received- 02-07-07
LUD I-765 - 02-23-07
Lud I-765 - 02-27-06 APPROVED!
ND- Interview(Tampa), 02-16-07
Interview Date - 03-20-07
LUD- I-485, I-130, 03-01-07
Interview- 03-20-07-APPROVED!!!
LUD I-130 Approved 03-20-07!!!
LUD I-485 Welcome notice sent, Card production ordered 03-23-07
LUD- Welcome notice received 03-27-07
LUD- I485 Approval notice mailed 03-28-07!!!
03-30-07 GC received!
106 days in all.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well Austriacus, If the TSC can do it, then I would think they would all have to. If it were me, and I was getting crap about the "False US Citizen Claim" from the IO at the interview, I would simple refer to the case.... U.S. v. Karaouni, 379 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 2004). That's what my lawyer would say anyway. I really think people shouldn't have to worry about the I-9 anymore, it's a dead issue that USCIS knows they can't win with a competent lawyer.

Wrong.

Matthew Oh is reporting that the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals just handed down a ruling that is exactly the opposite of the 9th Circuit; that checking this box does constitute a false claim to US citizenship and all that it entails.

So where does that leave one?

If you live in the area covered by the 9th Circuit (AZ, HI, WA, OR, CA, NV, AZ, ID, MT) then for the time being you are probably safe. If you live in the area covered by the 8th Circuit (ND, SD, NE, MN, IA, AR) then you are in serious trouble because USCIS is obligated to ignore the 9th Circuit and follow the legal directions of the 8th. Anywhere else? It depends which precedent the local Circuit Court of Appeals will follow.

Clearly, with this kind of a difference of opinion between the Appeals Courts the Supreme Court will weigh in on the matter, and solve it once and for all.
 
Wrong.

Matthew Oh is reporting that the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals just handed down a ruling that is exactly the opposite of the 9th Circuit; that checking this box does constitute a false claim to US citizenship and all that it entails.

So where does that leave one?

If you live in the area covered by the 9th Circuit (AZ, HI, WA, OR, CA, NV, AZ, ID, MT) then for the time being you are probably safe. If you live in the area covered by the 8th Circuit (ND, SD, NE, MN, IA, AR) then you are in serious trouble because USCIS is obligated to ignore the 9th Circuit and follow the legal directions of the 8th. Anywhere else? It depends which precedent the local Circuit Court of Appeals will follow.

Clearly, with this kind of a difference of opinion between the Appeals Courts the Supreme Court will weigh in on the matter, and solve it once and for all.

THEREALCANADIAN,
That's not the issue here. The issue for USCIS is can they prove behond 100 percent that the alien didn't claim to be a US national instead. If the alien say's "yeah I needed the money so I did check US citizen box" that changes things. However if he keeps his mouth shut, like the guy on here IM_HELP that did it, then no problem according to my lawyer. Unless the alien say's yes at the interview, or on the application for US citizenship, USCIS won't even look into the I-9.

We all know that checking the US citizen, US national box constitutes the "False Calim," according to current immigration law no matter where it takes place. Please NO IRA statutes, can they prove it behond 100 percent it wasn't meant to be the US national box?.

I do know however, that my lawyer has fought this I-9 issues in several different states and won 100 percent of the time. He believes it not to be an issue anymore, he is the lawyer. He also say's it's no longer asked at the AOS interview, only at Citizenship interview, and there it is overlooked except in regards to voteing. However he did get a woman out of crap for doing just that(voteing), she got her citizenship in December 07.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's not the issue here. The issue for USCIS is can they prove behond 100 percent that the alien didn't claim to be a US national instead.

Apparently, they were able to convince the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. Besides, immigration is a civil matter. They don't need to prove it 100%.

I do know however, that my lawyer has fought this I-9 issues in several different states and won 100 percent of the time.

That was then. Again, there's now a difference of opinion between the Appeals Courts, and pretty soon the Supreme Court will hear a case and make a definitive opinion one way or another.
 
Apparently, they were able to convince the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. Besides, immigration is a civil matter. They don't need to prove it 100%.



That was then. Again, there's now a difference of opinion between the Appeals Courts, and pretty soon the Supreme Court will hear a case and make a definitive opinion one way or another.

Link to case?
 
Apparently, they were able to convince the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. Besides, immigration is a civil matter. They don't need to prove it 100%.

I bet the alien said he did it on thje application, or at the interview. They wouldn't have known otherwise. And of course they proved he did it, he probley admitted to it.

That was then. Again, there's now a difference of opinion between the Appeals Courts, and pretty soon the Supreme Court will hear a case and make a definitive opinion one way or another.




I bet the alien said he did it on the application, or at the interview. They wouldn't have known otherwise. And of course they proved he did it, he probley admitted to it thinking it would be better for him to tell the truth.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Apparently, they were able to convince the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. Besides, immigration is a civil matter. They don't need to prove it 100%.



That was then. Again, there's now a difference of opinion between the Appeals Courts, and pretty soon the Supreme Court will hear a case and make a definitive opinion one way or another.


They had to prove 100 percent in this case!
U.S. v. Karaouni, 379 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 2004).


In Karaouni’s case, the government had the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt (1) that Karaouni had made a false claim of U.S. citizenship, (2)

Karaouni appealed his criminal conviction to the Ninth Circuit, contending that the evidence that had been presented against him was insufficient to support his conviction because no rational juror could find beyond a reasonable doubt that, by checking the box on the I‑9 form, Karaouni had made a claim to be a U.S. citizen, as opposed to a U.S. national
 
Last edited by a moderator:
They had to prove 100 percent in this case!

If it's a criminal case, then certainly - and there are criminal penalties IIRC for a false claim to US citizenship. But there's nothing in law preventing the government from failing to meet the burden of proof required in a criminal case, but later meeting the lower burden of proof in a civil matter.

Therefore, if I check this box and am hauled into court on a criminal charge of making a false claim to US citizenship, I can get acquitted based on this. USCIS can then turn around and deny me any immigration benefits based on this and win, because on the balance of probabilities I made a claim to US citizenship.

This is the same principle behind OJ getting acquitted in his criminal trial, then being found responsible for the death of his ex-wife in civil court.
 
If it's a criminal case, then certainly - and there are criminal penalties IIRC for a false claim to US citizenship. But there's nothing in law preventing the government from failing to meet the burden of proof required in a criminal case, but later meeting the lower burden of proof in a civil matter.

Therefore, if I check this box and am hauled into court on a criminal charge of making a false claim to US citizenship, I can get acquitted based on this. USCIS can then turn around and deny me any immigration benefits based on this and win, because on the balance of probabilities I made a claim to US citizenship.

This is the same principle behind OJ getting acquitted in his criminal trial, then being found responsible for the death of his ex-wife in civil court.

I dissagree, but hay that what this board is for. If you are aquitted, married to a US citizen, family ties, ect.. they would have to give you GC, or citizenship. How could you be denied a immigration benefit if the court(INS Judge) decides in your favor. Being that this is an immigration issue
(civil), and criminal issue, wouldn't an immigration judge be present?

If USCIS hauled every alien that overstayed their visa, and tried to deport them all for the I-9 false claim(because I am sure many people have done it for employment.) I bet 5 out of 10 on here have made the false claim. USCIS would be working 24/7 on just this issue alone.

I imagine USCIS would spend all year in court, not to mention thousands of dollars trying to prove these people actually did it, not to mention trying to deport all these people, families on wellfare, ect.. USCIS knows damn well that many people have done it, but at the GC interview it's not asked in the whole 12 min you are there, nor is it on the AOS application.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Being that this is an immigration issue(civil), and criminal issue, wouldn't an immigration judge be present?

The two are handled separately. The criminal matter is handled before a US District Court judge.

USCIS knows damn well that many people have done it, but at the GC interview it's not asked in the whole 12 min you are there, nor is it on the AOS application.

I don't dispute that, but what I wish to caution people about is that the Courts of Appeal are moving on this matter, and you never know what the situation is going to be several years from now, both on the legal or the enforcement front. One cannot change the past, but going forward if I was working illegally under no circumstances would I consider checking the US citizen/national box on the I-9.
 
TheRealCanadian, thanks for mentioning this case. The text of the decision can be found here!

Indeed, David Rodriguez signed a sworn statement (prepared by the IO) after the interview, wherein he "admitted that he knew that with the use of the fraudulent documents he had made a claim to a government agency that he was a citizen of the United States."

Quite a bit of the opinion also centers around whether filling out an I-9 for a private employer constitutes a benefit or purpose for the false claims to citizenship clause, and the court concluded that it does.

Since you guys argued a little about whether the USCIS has to prove 100% that a person means "citizen" when checking the box, here's what the 8th circuit has to say about proof:

Rodriguez bore the burden of proving clearly and beyond doubt that he was not inadmissible. [...] (“If the alien is an applicant for admission, the alien has the burden of establishing that he is clearly and beyond doubt entitled to be admitted and is not inadmissible under § 1182 of this title.”).

They go on to say the following:

Unfortunately, Form I-9 is poorly designed in that by checking one box the person ambiguously represents that he is either a citizen or a national. Therefore, the evidence must support a finding that the alien marked the “citizen or national of the United States” box on a Form I-9 with the purpose of representing himself as a citizen, not a national.

[...]

In conclusion, 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 secure employment with a private employer has falsely represented himself for a purpose or benefit under the Act. Substantial evidence supports the finding that Rodriguez falsely represented himself as a citizen when he submitted the Form I-9. Therefore, Rodriguez did not prove clearly and beyond doubt that he is admissible, and he is ineligible for adjustment of status.


Note that the 8th circuit held that substantial evidence (not beyond a reasonable doubt) exists that the petitioner claimed to be a citizen and he failed to prove beyond doubt that he is admissible. In their opinion, they considered both the sworn statement (which he tried to get dismissed since he said he didn't understand it when he signed it) and circumstances surrounding his filling out of I-9.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TheRealCanadian, thanks for mentioning this case. The text of the decision can be found here!

Indeed, David Rodriguez signed a sworn statement (prepared by the IO) after the interview, wherein he "admitted that he knew that with the use of the fraudulent documents he had made a claim to a government agency that he was a citizen of the United States."

Quite a bit of the opinion also centers around whether filling out an I-9 for a private employer constitutes a benefit or purpose for the false claims to citizenship clause, and the court concluded that it does.

Since you guys argued a little about whether the USCIS has to prove 100% striacus,that a person means "citizen" when checking the box, here's what the 8th circuit has to say about proof:

Rodriguez bore the burden of proving clearly and beyond doubt that he was not inadmissible. [...] (“If the alien is an applicant for admission, the alien has the burden of establishing that he is clearly and beyond doubt entitled to be admitted and is not inadmissible under § 1182 of this title.”).

They go on to say the following:

Unfortunately, Form I-9 is poorly designed in that by checking one box the person ambiguously represents that he is either a citizen or a national. Therefore, the evidence must support a finding that the alien marked the “citizen or national of the United States” box on a Form I-9 with the purpose of representing himself as a citizen, not a national.

[...]

In conclusion, 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 secure employment with a private employer has falsely represented himself for a purpose or benefit under the Act. Substantial evidence supports the finding that Rodriguez falsely represented himself as a citizen when he submitted the Form I-9. Therefore, Rodriguez did not prove clearly and beyond doubt that he is admissible, and he is ineligible for adjustment of status.


Note that the 8th circuit held that substantial evidence (not beyond a reasonable doubt) exists that the petitioner claimed to be a citizen and he failed to prove beyond doubt that he is admissible. In their opinion, they considered both the sworn statement (which he tried to get dismissed since he said he didn't understand it when he signed it) and circumstances surrounding his filling out of I-9.

Good point Austriacus,

As it say's though the IO had him sign a sworn statement that he did use false documents, and he did claim to be a US citizen, he admitted it. He also used fake ss#, birth certificates, and GC, so this goes a little behond just claiming to be a US citizen. Easy open and close case for USCIS. I don't think the issue here is what court, 8th, or 9th, have different opinions about this,with all the evidence, and sworn statement I bet even the 9th circuit would have also found him quilty.:eek:. QUILTY UPON HIS OWN SIGNED ADMISSION!

The question is, what if he hadn't admitted to it, or not brought the false documents to the interview, or for that matter signed an admission of quilt. When asked if he had ever had claimed to be a US citizen, he could have simply said NO. The minute he said he did it they had him, 100 percent. Unlike other cases like this where the goverment had the burden, Rodriguez had the burden this time of proving 100 percent that he didn't do it. What I am saying is, espically to IM_HELP, shut your mouth...deny, deny, deny...As you can see, when this guy admitted it, his immigration life was over!

This guy, obviously was not to bright either, bringing fraudulent
documents to the AOS interview? After the interview, the adjudications officer prepared a sworn statement of quilt from Rodriguez and HE SIGNES IT, he deserves what he got. Also I think this guy needs mental help!

I have still not found one case, in regards to the "I-9", when someone hasn't admitted to claiming to be a US citizen got deported. The only people that have got deported are the one that have said they did it.

Married to US Citizen November 11, 2006.
Re-date for I-485, I-130, I-765, 12-11-06
NOA- I-485, I-130, I-765- 12-14
RFE I-485- 12-26
Biometrics(code 3)- done 01-29-07
RFE Received- 02-07-07
LUD I-765 - 02-23-07
Lud I-765 - 02-27-06 APPROVED!
ND- Interview(Tampa), 02-16-07
Interview Date - 03-20-07
LUD- I-485, I-130, 03-01-07
Interview- 03-20-07-APPROVED!!!
LUD I-130 Approved 03-20-07!!!
LUD I-485 Welcome notice sent, Card production ordered 03-23-07
LUD- Welcome notice received 03-27-07
LUD- I485 Approval notice mailed 03-28-07!!!
03-30-07 GC received!
106 days in all.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
More I-9 new's

I guess USCIS lost this one also!:mad:

Here is another one TheRealCanadian and austriacus. I know she didn't claim to be a "US Citizen" however you can still see that they tried to deport her anyway. It seems as if this is a losing battle for USCIS.



http://www.visalaw.com/00oct2/9oct200.html


In re Casas-Garcia, Board of Immigration Appeals

In this unpublished decision, the Board ruled that making a false statement on a Form I-9, used to verify employment eligibility, is not a crime of moral turpitude.

The respondent, who was not lawfully present in the US, indicated on a Form I-9 given her by a potential employer that she was a permanent resident of the US and that she had a social security number. When the INS discovered her presence, it sought to deport her for engaging in fraud to obtain an immigration benefit. The Immigration Judge found her deportable, and ineligible for cancellation of removal because lying on the I-9 was a crime of moral turpitude. A crime of moral turpitude prevents a person from establishing good moral character, which is necessary for cancellation.

On appeal the Board ruled that the IJ was in error, and found that the respondent had established good moral character. While giving false testimony to obtain an immigration benefit is a bar to establishment of good moral character, and the I-9 is filled out under oath, the information provided in the I-9 is not testimony, which must be given orally. Finding that the respondent also satisfied the hardship and physical presence requirements for cancellation, the Board granted her application for cancellation of removal.

The opinion is not available online.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top