Xiao v. Atty Gen USA ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                                   NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 11-1589
    ___________
    HUI HUA XIAO,
    Petitioner
    v.
    ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
    Respondent
    ____________________________________
    On Petition for Review of an Administrative Order of
    the Department of Homeland Security Ordering
    Removal pursuant to 
    8 U.S.C. § 1187
    (A077-772-272)
    ____________________________________
    Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
    June 1, 2012
    Before: FISHER, WEIS and BARRY, Circuit Judges
    (Opinion filed: June 11, 2012)
    ___________
    OPINION
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Hui Hua Xiao, a native and citizen of China, presented a fraudulent Japanese
    passport to customs officials in an attempt to gain entry to the United States under the
    1
    Visa Waiver Program (“VWP”), 
    8 U.S.C. § 1187
    . Relying upon the provisions of the
    VWP which authorize summary removal, an agent with Immigration and Customs
    Enforcement (“ICE”), an arm of the Department of Homeland Security, ordered Xiao’s
    removal from the United States. Xiao petitions this Court for review, arguing that,
    because he only attempted to enter, but was not granted entry, under the VWP, he is
    entitled to a removal proceeding before an immigration judge. We conclude that ICE
    properly applied the VWP in ordering removal and will deny Xiao’s petition for review.
    I.
    The relevant facts are undisputed and can be recounted briefly. In 1999, Xiao
    arrived at Chicago O’Hare International Airport on a flight from Japan, where he had
    been residing illegally. Xiao sought admission under the VWP, a program that allows
    non-immigrant visitors from designated countries to enter the United States without a
    visa and to remain for up to ninety days, provided the visitor complies with various
    statutory and regulatory requirements. See Bradley v. Att’y Gen., 
    603 F.3d 235
    , 238 (3d
    Cir. 2010). Xiao presented a Japanese passport bearing a photograph of himself and the
    name “Toshiaki Tanaka.” (Japanese citizens, unlike Chinese citizens, are eligible for
    VWP admission. See 
    8 C.F.R. § 217.2
    (a).) As required for admission under the VWP,
    Xiao also completed Form I-94W, which waived his right to contest any action for
    removal, other than on the basis of an application for asylum. See 
    8 U.S.C. § 1187
    (b)(2).
    When questioned at the airport, Xiao conceded under oath that the Japanese
    passport was fake and that he is a Chinese citizen. Xiao was detained and refused
    2
    admission to the United States. In a subsequent interview, Xiao expressed fear of
    returning to China due to, inter alia, alleged persecution on account of his religion. The
    government referred his case to an immigration judge by issuing a Notice to Appear,
    which charged Xiao as removable under various provisions of the Immigration and
    Nationality Act (“INA”). In addition, the government released Xiao from custody and
    paroled him into the country under 
    8 U.S.C. § 1182
    (d)(5) (affording the Attorney General
    discretion to parole temporarily an alien applying for admission, “but such parole of such
    alien shall not be regarded as an admission of the alien”).
    Thereafter, Xiao filed an application for asylum. In 2003, an immigration judge in
    New York terminated Xiao’s removal proceeding, explaining that, because Xiao sought
    entry under the VWP, the government must issue a Notice of Referral (which commences
    an asylum-only proceeding before an immigration judge) not a Notice to Appear (which
    commences a removal proceeding under INA § 240). 1 The government promptly issued
    a Notice of Referral, and in 2006 an immigration judge in Boston denied Xiao’s asylum
    claim. Xiao appears not to have appealed that decision.
    On February 17, 2011, an ICE agent issued a summary removal order under the
    VWP, determining that Xiao is inadmissible under 
    8 U.S.C. §§ 1182
    (a)(6)(C)(i) and
    1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(II) because he willfully misrepresented a material fact in attempting to
    1
    “VWP participants who apply for asylum are granted ‘asylum-only’ hearings.”
    Shehu v. Att’y Gen., 
    482 F.3d 652
    , 655 (3d Cir. 2007). “If the applicant is denied
    relief in those proceedings, the VWP participant can be removed without any further
    process.” 
    Id.
    3
    gain admission to the United States. Xiao timely filed a petition for review.
    II.
    We have jurisdiction under 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    (a) because ICE’s order constitutes a
    final order of removal. See Bradley, 
    603 F.3d at
    237 n.1. Xiao contends on appeal that
    ICE had no authority to order his removal. He concedes that he engaged in a fraudulent
    attempt to enter this country under the terms of the VWP, but he argues that ICE cannot
    remove him summarily because he was never actually granted entry as a VWP
    participant. We discern no error in the removal order.
    Non-immigrant visitors who wish to benefit from the process of expedited
    admission provided by the VWP “must waive certain procedural rights afforded other
    aliens within this country[.]” Vera v. Att’y Gen., 
    672 F.3d 187
    , 190 (3d Cir. 2012).
    Among other things, “a VWP visitor must waive his or her rights to contest the
    government’s admissibility determinations and removal actions, except that the alien may
    contest removal actions on the basis of asylum.” 
    Id.
     (quoting Bradley, 
    603 F.3d at 238
    )
    (quotation marks omitted). To this end, a VWP applicant is required, “prior to admission
    to the United States, [to] present United States officers with a ‘completed, signed Form I-
    94W, Nonimmigrant Visa Waiver Arrival/Departure Form,’ ... which contains an express
    waiver of any possible right to contest admissibility determinations and removal actions.”
    
    Id.
     (quoting 
    8 C.F.R. § 217.2
    (b)(1)).
    Federal regulations adopted to implement the VWP do not afford different
    treatment to aliens, like Xiao, who apply for VWP admission with fraudulent travel
    4
    documents and fail to gain entry under the program:
    An alien who applies for admission under the provisions of
    section 217 of the Act [i.e., the VWP] ... who is in possession
    of and presents fraudulent or counterfeit travel documents,
    will be refused admission into the United States and removed.
    Such refusal and removal shall be made at the level of the
    port director or officer-in-charge, or an officer acting in that
    capacity, and shall be effected without referral of the alien to
    an immigration judge for further inquiry, examination, or
    hearing, except that an alien who presents himself or herself
    as an applicant for admission under [the VWP] and applies
    for asylum in the United States must be issued a Form I-863,
    Notice of Referral to Immigration Judge, for [an asylum-only
    proceeding].
    
    8 C.F.R. § 217.4
    (a)(1).
    Section 217.4(a)(1) forecloses Xiao’s argument here. The regulation makes clear
    that an alien who “applies” for VWP admission with a fraudulent travel document will be
    refused admission and removed summarily, unless the alien requests asylum. Section
    217.4(a)(1) thus “treats someone who applies under the [VWP] using fraudulent papers
    as bound by its provisions[.]” Shabaj v. Holder, 
    602 F.3d 103
    , 105 (2d Cir. 2010).
    Furthermore, the summary removal procedure applies “to anyone who seeks admission
    under the [VWP] using a passport from a nation included in the [VWP], whether the
    passport is valid or bogus.” 
    Id. at 106
    ; see also In re Kanagasundram, 
    22 I. & N. Dec. 963
    , 964 (BIA 1999) (explaining that “the provisions of 
    8 C.F.R. § 217.4
     are not limited
    to aliens who are actually nationals of VWP[] designated countries, but specifically
    encompass individuals who present fraudulent and counterfeit travel documents from
    such countries.”). Consequently, “a fraudulent [VWP] applicant ... is a [VWP] applicant
    5
    nevertheless.” Shabaj, 
    602 F.3d at 106
    .
    Xiao concedes that he applied for admission under the VWP using a fraudulent
    passport in an effort to pass himself off as a citizen of Japan, a VWP-designated country.
    In addition, Xiao does not dispute that he executed Form I-94W, which waived his right
    to challenge the determination that he is removable. Xiao was afforded an asylum-only
    proceeding, as contemplated by the VWP, and an immigration judge denied that relief.
    On this record, ICE was authorized to order removal without further proceedings before
    an immigration judge. See Shabaj, 
    602 F.3d at 105
     (holding that VWP applicant was
    “bound by the terms of the program” notwithstanding that he used a fraudulent passport
    to apply for admission); Zine v. Mukasey, 
    517 F.3d 535
    , 542-43 (8th Cir. 2008)
    (rejecting the argument that an alien who is ineligible to enter under the VWP should not
    be bound by its restrictions).
    While Xiao expresses a desire for a removal proceeding under INA § 240 so that
    he can apply for relief before an immigration judge and seek to adjust his status, Xiao’s
    attempted VWP entry subjected him to removal without further process. “[T]he need for
    summary removal procedures to enforce the conditions of ... the VWP is obvious. If
    individual hearings before already overworked immigration judges were required before
    an alien ... could be removed summarily the program might become unmanageable.”
    Vera, 672 F.3d at 198. Finally, Xiao suggests that the government’s initial issuance of a
    Notice to Appear coupled with its decision to parole him into the country somehow
    conferred a right to have an immigration judge determine his removability. Xiao fails,
    6
    however, to cite any authority in support of this argument, and we reject it on the record
    in this case. We hold that ICE did not err in ordering Xiao’s removal under the VWP.
    III.
    For the foregoing reasons, we will deny the petition for review.
    7
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-1589

Filed Date: 6/11/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021