Case: 18-14494 Date Filed: 10/02/2019 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 18-14494
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A076-253-006
SWARAN SINGH,
Petitioner,
versus
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(October 2, 2019)
Before ROSENBAUM, BRANCH, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 18-14494 Date Filed: 10/02/2019 Page: 2 of 5
Swaran Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) final order of removal and denial of his
application for adjustment of status pursuant to Immigration and Nationality Act
(“INA”) § 245, 8 U.S.C. § 1255. He argues that in denying his application for
adjustment of status, both the BIA and Immigration Judge (“IJ”) incorrectly
concluded that he was not eligible for that relief under INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I), 8
U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I), on the basis that he falsely claimed that he was a
United States citizen in a 2007 application for a Georgia Driver’s license. He
principally contends that his false claim of citizenship was not material to
obtaining a Georgia driver’s license valid for ten years because he was eligible for
a temporary driver’s license by virtue of his valid and renewable employment
authorization document (“EAD”).
When the BIA issues its own decision, we review only that decision, except
where, as here, the BIA expressly adopts the IJ’s opinion. See Ruiz v. Gonzales,
479 F.3d 762, 765 (11th Cir. 2007). We review de novo whether it has subject
matter jurisdiction to consider a petition for review. Alvarado v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
610 F.3d 1311, 1314 (11th Cir. 2010).
Generally, we lack jurisdiction to review any claim by an alien regarding the
granting of discretionary relief, including adjustment of status. INA
§ 242(a)(2)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). When this jurisdictional bar
2
Case: 18-14494 Date Filed: 10/02/2019 Page: 3 of 5
applies, the BIA’s factual determinations are unreviewable. Jean-Pierre v. U.S.
Att’y Gen.,
500 F.3d 1315, 1320 (11th Cir. 2007). However, we do retain
jurisdiction over constitutional claims or questions of law, which are reviewed de
novo. INA § 242(a)(2)(D), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); Lin v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
555
F.3d 1310, 1314 (11th Cir. 2009). Specifically, we retain jurisdiction to review
non-discretionary legal decisions that pertain to statutory eligibility for
discretionary relief. Mejia Rodriguez v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.,
562 F.3d
1137, 1143 (11th Cir. 2009). Such questions require only the application of facts
to the relevant law.
Id. Eligibility for adjustment of status, which includes the
admissibility determination, is a reviewable legal conclusion. See Alvarez Acosta
v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
524 F.3d 1191, 1197 n.14 (11th Cir. 2008) (describing the
BIA’s determination that a petitioner was ineligible for adjustment of status
because he was inadmissible as a legal conclusion).
To qualify for adjustment of status, an alien must demonstrate that he is
admissible to the United States for permanent residence. INA § 245(a)(2), 8
U.S.C. § 1255(a)(2). If an alien is an applicant for admission, he has the burden of
establishing that he is “clearly and beyond doubt entitled to be admitted and is not
inadmissible” under the INA. INA § 240(c)(2)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1229(c)(2)(A).
An alien is inadmissible if he falsely represents himself as a United States
citizen for any purpose or benefit under the INA or any other federal or state law.
3
Case: 18-14494 Date Filed: 10/02/2019 Page: 4 of 5
INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I). In Patel v. U.S. Att’y
Gen.,
917 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir. 2019), we addressed what this section requires in a
case that is factually similar to the instant case. The BIA had earlier read into the
statute both subjective intent and materiality requirements. See Matter of
Richmond, 26 I. & N. Dec. 779, 786-87 (BIA 2016). Although we expressed doubt
as to whether the statute contained a subjective intent requirement, we declined to
review it as an unreviewable factual finding of the IJ.
Patel, 917 F.3d at 1326-27.
We expressly declined to follow the BIA in requiring materiality of the benefit
procured by the false representation; we stated that the statute “does not require
that citizenship be material to the purpose or benefit sought.”
Id. at 1331-32.
Turning to the facts before it, the court noted that receiving a driver’s license is a
benefit and denied the petition.
Id. at 1332.
During the time that Singh procured his driver’s license, Georgia law
allowed those holding “valid documentary evidence of . . . lawful presence in the
United States under federal immigration law” to obtain a temporary license.
O.C.G.A. § 40-5-21.1(a). Those temporary licenses are valid only for the period of
time authorized for the immigrant’s stay in the documentation. Ga. Admin. Code
375-3-2-.01(1)(b). By contrast, citizens’ driver’s licenses expire after 5 or 10
years.
Id. 375-3-2-.01(1)(a).
4
Case: 18-14494 Date Filed: 10/02/2019 Page: 5 of 5
As an initial matter, because the BIA’s decision affirmed a denial of
adjustment of status pursuant to INA § 245(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a), we retain
jurisdiction over questions of law arising out of such a decision, which includes the
question of Singh’s statutory eligibility for adjustment of status. See INA
§ 242(a)(2)(D), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D);
Mejia, 562 F.3d at 1143. Moreover, as
Singh notes, on appeal he only challenges the agency’s findings as to the benefit
under federal or state law.
We conclude that the BIA did not err in finding that Singh’s false claim of
citizenship in his 2007 Georgia driver’s license application rendered him
inadmissible under INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I), and
that he was consequently ineligible to adjust his status. To the extent that Singh
argues that his false claim was not material to obtaining the Georgia driver’s
license, that argument has been foreclosed by our decision in Patel. Additionally,
like the alien in Patel, Singh has failed to show that the agency erred in concluding
that when he falsely claimed United States citizenship in his 2007 application for a
Georgia driver’s license, he did so in pursuit of a state-law benefit—namely, a
Georgia driver’s license valid for 10 years, as opposed to the temporary license
that was only valid until his immigration document expired a few months later.
Accordingly, we deny his petition for review.
PETITION DENIED.
5
