Friday, February 11, 2011

Unpub. BIA SSN GMC CIMT cancellation victory

Mariana Collins-Romero send us this gem: "The Immigration Judge erred in holding that the respondent's act of inventing a social security number is a crime involving moral turpitude ... On appeal, the DHS has not directed us to any case law, nor do we find any, where an alien who admitted to using a fictitious social security number to secure private employment was deemed to have committed a crime involving moral turpitude under federal immigration law. ... the respondent has established her statutory eligibility for cancellation of removal. We see no reason to deny relief in the exercise of discretion. Accordingly, we sustain the respondent's appeal."  Matter of X-, Feb. 7, 2011.

Courtesy of Bender's Immigration Bulletin - Daily Edition.

4 comments:

  1. Please read the below and tell me how this is not a CIMT. Please don't conveniently overlook that the misuse can be for any pupose if they meet the violations in (7)(A)/(B) or in (8). And if you disagree, please substantiate your position with a legal argument; something other than you disagree. I wasn't abble to view the link on Benders (problem w/my computer) but I doubt the BIA was presented with this argument.

    42 USC Section 408(a) provides in pertinent part:

    Whoever-

    (7) ...for the purpose of obtaining anything of value from any person, or for any other purpose—

    (A) willfully, knowingly, and with intent to deceive, uses a social security account number, assigned by the Commissioner of Social Security (in the exercise of the Commissioner's authority under section 405(c)(2) of this title to establish and maintain records) on the basis of false information furnished to the Commissioner of Social Security by him or by any other person; or

    (B) with intent to deceive, falsely represents a number to be the social security account number assigned by the Commissioner of Social Security to him or to another person, when in fact such number is not the social security account number assigned by the Commissioner of Social Security to him or to such other person; or

    (C) knowingly alters a social security card issued by the Commissioner of Social Security, buys or sells a card that is, or purports to be, a card so issued, counterfeits a social security card, or possesses a social security card or counterfeit social security card with intent to sell or alter it; or

    (8) discloses, uses, or compels the disclosure of the social security number of any person in violation of the laws of the United States;

    shall be guilty of a felony and upon conviction thereof shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.

    Fraud is defined by non-technical standards and is not to be restricted by any common-law definition of false pretenses. The law does not define fraud; it needs no definition; it is as old as falsehood and as versatile as human ingenuity. Weiss v. United States, 122 F.2d 675, 681 (5th Cir. 1941), cert. denied, 314 U.S. 687 (1941). Fraud is a broad term, which includes false representations, dishonesty and deceit. See United States v. Grainger, 701 F.2d 308, 311 (4th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 947 (1983). Whatever else the phrase "crime involving moral turpitude" may mean in peripheral cases, the decided cases make it plain that crimes in which fraud was an ingredient have always been regarded as involving moral turpitude.... Fraud is the touchstone by which this case should be judged. The phrase "crime involving moral turpitude" has without exception been construed to embrace fraudulent conduct. Jordan v. DeGeorge, 341 U.S. 223 (1951); Matter of Flores, 17 I&N Dec. 225 (BIA 1980).

    Misuse of a social security is a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) whereby an alien fraudulently made a false representation and utilized a social security number that was not assigned to them by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. See Matter of Adetiba, 20 I&N Dec. 506 (BIA 1992).

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dear Mr. Jones: First, I'm the messenger, not the advocate, so your comment should be directed to the BIA, not to me. Second, until you have read the decision and the briefs from both parties, you have no standing to complain. Sincerely, Dan Kowalski.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What is your email or fax? I'll send you the decision.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Can you send m the decision? Please. Joseprzfmly@aol.com

    ReplyDelete