A-10831437
Decided by Board May 29, 1957
Fraud and misrepresentation — Section 212 (a) (19), Immigration and Nationality Act — United States citizen's identification card is "other documentation" — Voluntary departure, deception practiced on Service militates against grant.
(1) A United States citizen's identification card is "other documentation" within the meaning of section 212 (a) (19) of the act. This term refers to any document with which an alien seeks to gain admission either as an alien or as a citizen and which normally facilitates admission.
(2) Where respondent willfully obtained a United States citizen's identification card in her sister's name, which she knew she was not entitled to use, and procured admission as a citizen, she is excludable under section 212 (a) (19) of the act.
(3) Respondent's false testimony in connection with obtaining the citizen's identification card brings her within the provision of section 101 (f) (6) and renders her statutorily ineligible for voluntary departure. Moreover, even without statutory ineligibility, the deception practiced on the Service militates against granting voluntary departure as a matter of discretion.
CHARGES:
Order To Show Cause: Act of 1952 — Section 241 (a) (1) [ 8 U.S.C. 1251] — Excludable at time of entry — Visa or other documentation procured by fraud or by willfully misrepresenting a material fact — Section 212 (a) (19) [ 8 U.S.C. 1182].
Act of 1952 — Section 241 (a) (1) [ 8 U.S.C. 1251] — Excludable at time of entry — Immigrant, no visa — Section 212 (a) (20) [ 8 U.S.C. 1182].
BEFORE THE BOARD
Discussion: This case is before us on appeal taken by the examining officer from the special inquiry officer's order of January 31, 1957, authorizing voluntary departure for the respondent but providing for her deportation solely on the second charge stated in the order to show cause, in the event she fails to so depart. The Service seeks the entry of an order of deportation here.
This record relates to a 20-year-old female alien, a native and citizen of Mexico, who last entered the United States at San Ysidro, California, on November 15, 1954. She then gained admission by presenting a United States citizen's identification card issued at El Paso, Texas, on May 21, 1954, in the name of H---- S---- J----, her deceased sister who was born in the United States on August 11, 1931. She was then coming to this country to live with her husband, a lawfully admitted permanent resident alien, whom she had married here in February of 1954. Accordingly, and since respondent has never been admitted to the United States for permanent residence as an alien, her deportability on the second charge stated in the order to show cause is established.
We also conclude that respondent is deportable on the first charge contained in the order to show cause, and that the special inquiry officer erred when he reached a contrary conclusion on the basis of a finding that a United States citizen's identification card is not "other documentation" within the contemplation of the statute. In Matter of M---- y R----, 0606/62399, 6 IN Dec. 315, we stated that "the phrase `or other documentation' in section 212 (a) (19) refers to documents required at the time of an alien's application for admission to the United States, as for example, a reentry permit, border-crossing identification card or a fraudulently obtained United States passport." We fail to find any distinction between a United States citizen's identification card and a United States passport, for purposes of present consideration at least, and on the basis of Matter of M---- y R----, supra, we hold that the former also is "other documentation" within the purview of section 212 (a) (19) of the Immigration and Nationality Act ( 8 U.S.C. 1182).
The special inquiry officer apparently believes the statute refers only to documents required of an alien at the time he applies for admission into the United States as such. We disagree, however, holding that it contemplates any documents with which an alien seeks to gain admission, either as an alien or as a citizen, and which normally facilitate admission. We recognize, as pointed out by the special inquiry officer, that the law does not require an alien to present a fraudulently obtained document, such as a United States passport, issued only to a citizen. The simple answer is that the law does not require him to present a fraudulently obtained visa either, but he certainly would be deportable if he did.
The only remaining question as to respondent's deportability on the first charge is whether the document was obtained by fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact; the evidence of record establishes that it was. The misrepresentation was clearly material since the question of identity always is, and in this case the respondent, an alien, used a document issued in the name of her sister, a citizen, and thereby gained admission as a citizen which, in fact, she was not. The misrepresentation was also clearly willful because the record reveals that respondent knew she was not entitled to use as her own the document issued in her sister's name and which document represented facts which were not true as to herself. Finally, on this point, the evidence of record hereinafter set forth fixes responsibility for the misrepresentation firmly on respondent.
Respondent first obtained a United States citizen's identification card in her deceased sister's name in 1950 or 1951, when she was only 13 or 14 years of age; her mother thought up the scheme at that time; she (respondent) went to the Service at her mother's insistence; and the mother gave the information about the birth of her citizen child on which the card was then issued. The card used at the time of her last entry was obtained by respondent as a replacement for the original one, which was lost; she obtained it at her mother's insistence; and she was then 17½ years of age and married. Respondent seeks to avoid responsibility for the misrepresentation by claiming that all she did was give her name; by denying that she was sworn and that the officers had her raise her right hand and swear that the statements in the application for the card were correct; and by claiming that her mother identified her as the child who was born in the United States and that the card was given to her mother.
The responsibility for the fraud or willful misrepresentation in obtaining the first card may well be the mother's but it is respondent's with respect to the second. She was then 17½ years of age and married, and she admittedly knew that she was not entitled to the card issued on the basis of her sister's birth in the United States. The deception she practiced on the Service, therefore, is substantially hers and not her mother's.
The only other issue in the case is whether the special inquiry officer properly authorized voluntary departure here; we hold that he did not. When respondent obtained and used the citizen's identification card in 1954 to gain admission as a citizen she avoided the requirements for admission as an alien and examination as such. Certainly this brings her within the provision of section 101 (f) (6) of the Immigration and Nationality Act ( 8 U.S.C. 1101) precluding a finding of good moral character, a requisite to voluntary departure, where an alien has given false tesimony for the purpose of obtaining any benefits under said act. Moreover, even if her conduct did not render her statutorily ineligible therefor, the deception respondent practiced on the Service militates against granting voluntary departure, as a matter of discretion.
On the basis of the foregoing, we will remand the case to the special inquiry officer for reconsideration of his action in granting voluntary departure to respondent and for such other and additional action as may be appropriate.
Order: It is ordered that the special inquiry officer's order of January 31, 1957, be withdrawn and that the case be remanded to said official for appropriate action not inconsistent with the foregoing.