Etenyi v. Lynch, No. 14-3397 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseEtenyi, a citizen of Kenya, came to the U.S. on a student visa in 2006. After he graduated in 2011, he remained and married a U.S. citizen. Etenyi’s wife sought an immediate-relative visa on Etenyi’s behalf. Etenyi concurrently applied to adjust his status to that of a lawful permanent resident, 8 U.S.C. 1255(a). DHS denied Etenyi’s application on grounds that he had falsely claimed that he was a U.S. citizen on a Form I-9 when he applied for a job in 2009. At a removal hearing, Etenyi admitted that he did not comply with the student visa, but denied that he had falsely claimed citizenship. Etenyi contended that the form had been pre-populated with his personal information and that he did not notice the checked box asserting, under penalty of perjury, that he was a citizen. The IJ considered the signed Form I-9, Etenyi’s testimony, Etenyi’s social security card that stated DHS authorization was required before Etenyi could work, and evidence of Etenyi’s efforts to ensure that his social security card was accurate, and concluded that Etenyi’s testimony was not credible. The BIA affirmed. The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review, holding that substantial evidence supported a finding that Etenyi falsely claimed citizenship on a Form I-9,
Court Description: Gruender, Author, with Melloy and Benton, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - immigration. Because substantial evidence supports the BIA's finding that Eteni falsely claimied citizenship on a Form I-9 when he applied for a job in 2009 and thus was ineligible for adjustment of status, the petition for review is denied. The immigration judge's factual finding regarding credibility is entitled to deference and the evidence does not compel a contrary conclusion. The BIA employed the proper standard of review and the Form 1-9 was sufficient evidence. Because Etenyi is inadmissible for permanent residence he is ineligible for relief in the form of an adjustment of status.
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.