1Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf, of the United States District Court for the Eastern… v. Holder UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 1 2 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 3 4 5 6 August…

1Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf, of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by
designation.
11-1123-ag
Crocock v. Holder
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 1
2
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 3
4
5
6
August Term, 2011 7
(Argued: February 9, 2012 Decided: February 23, 2012) 8
9
Docket No. 11-1123-ag 10
11
12
ANTHONY GERARD CROCOCK, 13
14
Petitioner, 15
-v.- 16
17
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., United States Attorney General, 18
19
Respondent. 20
21
22
23
Before: Wesley, Lohier, Circuit Judges, Mauskopf, 24
District Judge. 1
25
Petitioner seeks review of an order of the Board of 26
Immigration Appeals finding him ineligible for adjustment of 27
status due to his inadmissability under section 28
212(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 29
U.S.C. § 1182 (a)(6)(C)(ii), for falsely representing 30
himself to be a United States citizen. Petitioner did not 31
meet his burden of demonstrating that he did not represent 32
himself to be a United States citizen when he checked the 33
“citizen or national” box on an I-9 Employment Eligibility 34
Verification Form. Accordingly, we deny the petition for 35
review. 36
37
DENIED. 38
39
40
41

-- 1 of 8 --

2
1
2
J AMES E. S WAINE , Law Offices of James E. Swaine, 3
Hamden, CT, for Petitioner. 4
5
B ROOKE M. M AURER , Attorney, Office of Immigration 6
Litigation, Civil Division (Tony West, 7
Assistant Attorney General, Richard M. Evans, 8
Assistant Director, Nancy E. Friedman, Senior 9
Litigation Counsel, on the brief), for Eric H. 10
Holder, Jr., United States Attorney General, 11
Washington, D.C., for Respondent. 12
13
14
15
PER CURIAM: 16
17
Petitioner Anthony Gerard Crocock petitions for review 18
of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) 19
affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) determination that 20
Crocock was ineligible for adjustment of status. The IJ 21
determined that Crocock failed to meet his burden of 22
demonstrating that he was not inadmissible under Immigration 23
and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 212(a)(6)(C)(ii), 8 U.S.C. § 24
1182 (a)(6)(C)(ii), for falsely representing himself as a 25
United States citizen for the purpose of any benefit under 26
the INA. Crocock had checked the box on an I-9 Employment 27
Eligibility Form (“I-9”) indicating that he was a “citizen 28
or national” of the United States when he applied for a job. 29
Crocock argues that he checked the “citizen or national” box 30
on the I-9 with the intent of claiming nationality and that 31
due to the ambiguity of the statement, the I-9 alone is 32

-- 2 of 8 --

3
insufficient to establish his inadmissibility. Because it 1
is Crocock’s burden to demonstrate that he is not 2
inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a), we find no error in 3
the agency’s determination and deny the petition for review. 4
Background 5
In January 2004, Crocock, a native and citizen of 6
Ireland, entered the United States on a non-immigrant 7
student visa to complete a paramedic certification program. 8
Following completion of his paramedic course and training 9
and the subsequent expiration of his student visa and work 10
authorization, Crocock applied for and, in October 2004, 11
obtained a position with the fire department in Saco, Maine. 12
In order to obtain this position, Crocock completed an I-9 13
attesting to his employment eligibility by checking the box 14
on the form labeled “citizen or national.” In April 2006, 15
based on a tip from a confidential informant, Crocock was 16
charged by the Department of Homeland Security with 17
removability under INA § 237(a)(1)(B), 8 U.S.C. 18
§ 1227(a)(1)(B), for remaining in the United States beyond 19
the authorized period and under INA § 237(a)(3)(D), 8 U.S.C. 20
§ 1227(a)(3)(D), as an alien who falsely represented himself 21
to be a citizen of the United States for any purpose or 22
benefit under the INA. Shortly thereafter, Crocock pled 23

-- 3 of 8 --

4
guilty in the United States District Court for the District 1
of Maine to making a false attestation on an Employment 2
Verification System Form in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a) 3
and (b), and was subsequently charged with an additional 4
ground of removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) for 5
having been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. 6
Before the IJ, Crocock conceded that he was removable for 7
remaining in the United States beyond the authorized period, 8
and he applied for adjustment of status based on his June 9
2006 marriage to a United States citizen. 10
In November 2008, the IJ found Crocock removable based 11
on his overstay and his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1546, 12
which the IJ determined to be a crime involving moral 13
turpitude. The IJ further found that Crocock was ineligible 14
for an adjustment of status because he was inadmissible 15
under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii) as an alien who falsely 16
represented himself to be a citizen of the United States. 17
The IJ found that Crocock had not demonstrated that he was 18
admissible because, although Crocock claimed to have 19
believed that he was a “national” when he checked the box on 20
the I-9, Crocock had admitted to an immigration officer that 21
he had falsely claimed to be a United States citizen, 22
offered confusing testimony as to whether he believed he was 23

-- 4 of 8 --

2Crocock does not contest that his representation, made in
order to obtain employment, was for a purpose or benefit under
the INA.
5
a national of the United States, and pled guilty to making a 1
false attestation on the I-9. Crocock appealed the IJ’s 2
decision to the BIA, which affirmed the IJ’s decision in 3
February 2011 and dismissed Crocock’s appeal. 4
Crocock now argues that the I-9 is ambiguous as to 5
whether an individual who checks the “citizen or national” 6
box makes a representation of citizenship, and argues that 7
he claimed, falsely or otherwise, to be a national and not a 8
United States citizen on the I-9. He concludes that he is 9
admissible to the United States and eligible for adjustment 10
of status because 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii) applies only 11
to false claims of United States citizenship. 2
12
Discussion 13
Under the circumstances of this case, we review the 14
decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Chen v. 15
Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). Although we 16
lack jurisdiction to review a discretionary denial of 17
adjustment of status, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Ruiz 18
v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 269, 275 n.4 (2d Cir. 2009), we retain 19
jurisdiction to review constitutional claims or questions of 20
law raised in a petition for review, including whether an 21

-- 5 of 8 --

3Crocock contends that this “clearly and beyond doubt”
standard is too harsh, as evidenced by the fact that the BIA
indicated that it was applying a preponderance of the evidence
standard. The BIA concluded, however, that Crocock failed to
show that he clearly and beyond a doubt was admissible because he
did not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that he
had not held himself out to be a citizen, and there is no
indication that the IJ applied a different standard. To the
extent Crocock challenges the application of the “clearly and
beyond a doubt” standard, he appears to confuse the substantive
standard for establishing admissibility with the evidentiary
burden required to demonstrate that he has satisfied the
applicable substantive criteria.
6
alien is eligible for adjustment of status, Aslam v. 1
Mukasey, 537 F.3d 110, 115 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam). We 2
review such claims de novo. See Lecaj v. Holder, 616 F.3d 3
111, 114 (2d Cir. 2010). 4
To qualify for adjustment of status, an alien must 5
demonstrate that he is “admissible to the United States for 6
permanent residence.” 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a)(2). Because 7
applicants for adjustment of status are “assimilated to the 8
position” of aliens seeking entry into this country, Drax v. 9
Reno, 338 F.3d 98, 113 (2d Cir. 2003) (internal quotation 10
marks omitted), such aliens must show that they are “clearly 11
and beyond doubt” entitled to be admitted, see Ibragimov v. 12
Gonzales, 476 F.3d 125, 131 (2d Cir. 2007). 3
13
As Crocock sought relief from removal in the form of 14
adjustment of status, he was required to demonstrate that he 15
did not falsely represent himself to be a U.S. citizen. See 16
8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) (“Any alien who falsely 17

-- 6 of 8 --

7
represents, or has falsely represented, himself or herself 1
to be a citizen of the United States for any purpose or 2
benefit . . . is inadmissible.”). Crocock argues that his 3
attestation to being a “citizen or national” on the I-9 is 4
alone insufficient to establish his inadmissibility because 5
he checked the box while claiming to be a national, which is 6
not a ground of inadmissibility. Crocock correctly argues 7
that a false claim of nationality, made either intentionally 8
or mistakenly, does not render an alien inadmissible under 8 9
U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii). However, the burden of 10
demonstrating admissibility is squarely on Appellant. See 11
Ibragimov, 476 F.3d at 131. Here, Crocock was required to 12
prove a negative—that he did not falsely claim United States 13
citizenship. 14
We find no error in the agency’s determination that he 15
failed to meet his burden. Because the I-9 shows that 16
Crocock claimed to be a citizen or national, he had the 17
burden of showing that he claimed to be a national, not a 18
citizen. Crocock points to no evidence beyond his testimony 19
to demonstrate that he thought he was a national when 20
completing the I-9. Furthermore, his assertion that he was 21
claiming to be a national at the time he completed the I-9 22
is undermined by his later admission before the IJ that he 23

-- 7 of 8 --

8
did not believe himself to be a national, as well as his 1
prior statement to an immigration officer in which he 2
characterized himself as a United States citizen in order to 3
obtain his “dream job.” Ultimately, because Crocock bears 4
the burden of demonstrating that he did not falsely claim to 5
be a United States citizen and because he points to no 6
additional evidence supporting his claim that he believed he 7
was a U.S. national, we find no error in the agency’s 8
conclusion that Crocock failed to carry his burden of 9
establishing admissibility. See Ateka v. Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 10
954, 958 (8th Cir. 2004). 11
Conclusion 12
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 13
DENIED. As we have completed our review, the stay of 14
removal previously granted is VACATED. 15

-- 8 of 8 --