Alana Ramsoondar v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 09-1665 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1665 ALANA RAMSOONDAR, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: November 12, 2009 Decided: November 24, 2009 Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jason Lee Pope, BERLIN & ASSOCIATES, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, John S. Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel, Aimee J. Frederickson, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Alana Ramsoondar, a native and citizen of Trinidad and Tobago, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( Board ) sustaining the Government s appeal and finding that she was not eligible for adjustment of status because she falsely claimed to be a United States citizen in order to gain employment. The We deny the petition for review. Immigration and Nationalization Act ( INA ) § 212(a)(6)(C)(ii) renders inadmissible [a]ny alien who falsely represents . . . 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 . . . found 8 to U.S.C. be § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) inadmissible under this (2006). section, For there aliens is no See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1159(c), 1182(a)(6)(C)(iii) available waiver. and (i) (2006); see also Pichardo v. INS, 216 F.3d 1198, 1201 (9th Cir. 2000) ( This section is a non-waivable ground of inadmissibility. ). An alien seeking private sector employment who United falsely claims States citizenship is seeking a benefit under the INA. See Theodros v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 396, 400-02 (5th Cir. 2007). In Rodriguez v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 773, 777 (8th Cir. 2008), the court found that 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 2 secure employment with a private employer has falsely represented himself for a benefit or purpose under the Act. See also Kechkar v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 1080, 1084-85 (10th Cir. 2007). Ramsoondar had the burden to show she was eligible for See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(2)(A) (2006) relief from removability. (The burden is on the alien to show she is clearly and beyond doubt entitled section 1182 to of be admitted this and title. ). is not Under 8 inadmissible C.F.R. under § 1240.8(d) (2009): The respondent shall have the burden of establishing that . . . she is eligible for any requested benefit or privilege and that it should be granted in the exercise of discretion. If the evidence indicates that one or more of the grounds for mandatory denial of the application for relief may apply, the alien shall have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that such grounds do not apply. Substantial evidence supports the finding that Ramsoondar s testimony indicated she falsely claimed to be a United States citizen in order ineligible for any waiver. to be employed and is thus Ramsoondar failed in her burden to show she did not falsely claim to be a citizen in order to receive a benefit under the INA. are conclusive compelled to unless conclude any to Factual findings by the Board reasonable the 3 adjudicator contrary. would 8 be U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006). We find the record does not compel a contrary factual finding. We Ramsoondar s further claim find that the she record was does otherwise not support eligible for employment authorization when she falsely claimed to be a United States citizen. Accordingly, because substantial evidence supports the Board s finding and leads falsely claimed United to the States conclusion citizenship that in Ramsoondar order to gain employment, a benefit under the INA, we deny the petition for review. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. PETITION DENIED 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
