FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
SEP 04 2018
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN JOSE MORENO-MANDUJANO, No. 15-70136
Petitioner, Agency No. A024-294-047
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2017**
San Francisco, California
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Juan Jose Moreno-Mandujano (“Moreno”), a native and citizen of Mexico,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision
affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order of removal. We have jurisdiction
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings and review de novo questions of law. See Ali v. Holder, 637 F.3d 1025,
1028–29 (9th Cir. 2011). We grant the petition for review and remand.
Moreno entered the United States in 1982 at the age of 17 on a non-
immigrant six-month visa. Moreno remained in the United States beyond six
months. In 2014, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal
proceedings for overstaying the visa. Moreno admitted removability but sought to
remain in the United States by applying to adjust his status, and his United States
citizen daughter filed a visa petition on his behalf. During the 2014 removal
proceeding, Moreno testified about his employment history. In response to
questioning by the IJ about “what way” Moreno told his employer that he was
legal, Moreno responded, “I just told them I was a citizen.” Immediately following
this exchange, the IJ concluded that “having made a false claim to United States
citizenship for employment, [Moreno] would not be eligible to receive adjustment
of status.” Moreno appealed the IJ’s oral decision. The BIA dismissed Moreno’s
appeal, agreeing that Moreno failed to meet his burden to show eligibility for
adjustment of status because of his false representation of citizenship to an
2
employer pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I)1 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act.
Moreno contends that § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) applies only to written, rather
than oral, false representations of citizenship. We agree. In Diaz-Jimenez v.
Sessions, No. 15-73603 (9th Cir. Aug. 30, 2018), we concluded that “an alien can
violate § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) by a false representation of citizenship for the
‘purpose or benefit’ of obtaining private employment under § 1324a only when
such a representation is made under § 1324a(b)(2) on a Form I–9.” Id. at *16.
Here, Moreno’s oral representation to his prospective private employer that he was
a citizen is insufficient to establish a violation of § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) by a false
representation of citizenship.
Petition GRANTED and REMANDED.
1
8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I), provides:
Any 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 this
chapter (including section 1324a of this title) or any other Federal or State law is
inadmissible.
3