Rosenber

g
, Allison, Esq
505 8th Avenue, Ste 12A03
New York, NY 10018-000
Name: RICHMOND, KEON
U.S. Deparment of Justice
Executive Ofce fr Immigation Review
Board of Immigration Appeals
Ofce of the Clerk
S/07 Lesbur Pik, Suite 2000
Falls Clurcl, Vrnia 22041
OHS/ICE Ofice of Chief Counsel - NYC
26 Federal Plaa, Room 1130
New York, NY 10278
A097-519-56
Date of this notice: 3/13/2012
Enclosed is a copy of the Boad's decision and order in the above-reference case.
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Pauley, Roger
? M .. . 4-. w. -'
Sincerely,
Donna Car
Chief Clerk
-- _,:;.z.x,.1,_W. ,, ,
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
Cite as: Keon Richmond, A097 519 056 (BIA Mar. 13, 2012)
RICHMOND, KEON
A 097-519-56
35 HACKENSACK AVENUE
KEARNY, NY 07032
Name: RICHMOND, KEON
U.S. Department of Justice
Executve Ofce fr higation Review
Board of Immigation Appeals
Ofce of the Clerk
5101 Leeb1rg Pike, Site 2000
Fals Cl1Url1, Vrinia 2204/
DHS/ICE Ofce of Chief Counsel NYC
26 Federal Plaa, Room 1130
New York, NY 10278
A097-519056
Date of this notice: 3/13/2012
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision in the above-referenced case. This copy is bein
g
provided to you as a couresy. Your atorey or representative has been sere with this
decision pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 1292.S(a). If the attached decision orders that you be removed
from the United States or afirms an Immi
g
ration Judge's decision ordering that you be
removed, any petition for review of the attached decision must be filed with and received by the
approprate cour of appeals within 30 days of the date of the decision.
Enclosue
Pael Member:
Pauley, Roger
P">:,T..D.
Sincerelv.
DO ca
Dona Car
Chief Clerk
: x w
, *
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
Cite as: Keon Richmond, A097 519 056 (BIA Mar. 13, 2012)
U.S. Deparent of Justice
Eecutive Otce fr Im igation Review
Decision of the Board of Imigation Appeals
Falls Church, Viiia 22041
File: A097 519 056 - New York, NY Date:
M 1 3Z012
I r: KEON RICHMOND a.k.a. Kieon Richmond a.k.a. Keion Richmond a.k.a. Keion Richma
IN REMOVAL PROCEEDIGS
APPEAL
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Allison Rosenberg, Esquire
ON BEHALF OF DHS: L. Adriana Lopez
Assistant Chief Counsel
CHARGE:
Notice: Sec. 237(a)( l)(B), l&N Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)( l)(B)] -
In the United States in violation of law
Sec. 237(a)(2)(A)(iii), l&N Act [8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii)] -
Convicted of aggavated felony (as defned in section 101(a)(43)(F))
(not sustained)
APLICATION: Suppression of evidence; adjustment of status
The respondent appeals fom decision of the Immigration Judge dated Febr 23, 2011,
denying his motion to supress evidence, fnding h removable fom the Unite States, ad denying
his applicaton fr adjustent of stats under section 245(a) of the Immigation ad Nationality Act,
8 U.S.C. 1255(a). Te appeal will be dismissed.
We review the fndings of fct made by te Immigation Judge, including the determination of
credibility, fr clea eror. 8 C.F.R. I 003.1 (d)(3)(i). We review all other issues, including whether
the paries have met the relevant burden of proof ad issues of discretion, de novo. 8 C.F.R.
1003.l(d)(3)(ii). Te respondent's application fr relief which was fled afer May 11, 2005, is
govered by te aendments made to the Act by the RAL ID Act. See Matter of S-B-,
24 I&N De. 42 (BIA 2006).
Upon de novo review, we afm the Imigtion Judge's denal of the respondent's motion to
suppress evidence. We ae upersuaded by the respondent's contention that the statements he made
to Depaent of Homelad Security (DHS) ofcers during interviews that took place whle he wa
incacerated pursuat t a criminal conviction, wherein he falsely claimed to b a United Sttes
citizn, should be excluded fom evidence. The exclusiona rle does not generally apply in civil
removal hearngs. INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 ( 1984); Montero v. INS, 124 F.3d 381
(2d Cir. 1997); Matter of Sandoval, 17 l&N Dec. 70 (BIA 1979). I this regard, the respondent's
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
Cite as: Keon Richmond, A097 519 056 (BIA Mar. 13, 2012)
A097 519 056
..
.
.
extensive reliance on caes asing in context of criminal prosecutions is misplaced. However, the
exclusionar rule may apply if ther a egegious violations of the Fourh Amendment or other
liberes that might tansgess notions of fndamental fairess ad undenine the probative value
of the evidence obtained. INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, supra, at 1032, I 050-51 n.5; Almeida-Amaral
v. Gonales, 461 F.3d 231, 235 (2d Cir. 2006) (holding that the exclusion of evidence is appropriate
where (a) egregious violation that wa fndamentally unfair occured, or (b) the violation- rgardless
of its egregiousness or unfairess - undenined reliability of evidence in dispute). On appeal, the
respondent does not specifcally allege he ha demonstated an egegious violaton of the Fourth
Aendment or tat any violation undenined the reliability of te evidence he seeks to dispute.1
Te respondent's agment that he was not advised of his Miranda rights is without merit. Such
wags are not necessar fr evidence to be admissible i civil immigration proceedings. See IS
v. Lopez-Mendoza, supra, at 1039 (the absence of Miranda wangs does not render a oterise
volunta statement by the respondent inadmissible in a deportation case); United States
v. Rodiguez, 356 F.3d 254 (2d Cir. 2004) ( holding that no Mirada wang wa required when
Imigation ad Naturaliztion Seric (IS) agent interewed defndat while he was incacerated
on ulated state chages, since infration agent sought in connection with possible deporation
proceedings did not become relevant to a criminal proceeding against defendat until his later illegal
reent); United States v. Wiloughby, 860 F.2d 15, 23 (2d Cir. 1988) (holding in the context of a
criminal case that though the defendat's incacertion wa undeniably custody in the colloquial
sense, the conversation at issue involved no additional coercion and so Mirada waings were not
required). Given that Mirda waings a not required fr a statement to b admissible in civil
immgtion proceedings, te respondent's agument that his statements should b suppressed
beause he wa not given such wangs, which relies on cases arising in the criminal context, is
without merit (Respondent's Br. at 14-15). Similarly, the respondent filed to prlna facie
demonstate that his answers to te DHS's questions were involuntar or coerced. Matter of
Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N De. 503, 505 (BIA 1980).
Finally, we agee with the Immigration Judge that the respondent's argument that his statements
should be supprssed becaue he wa the victim of rcial prfling lacks mert (l.J. at 15-17). We
fnd no clear eror in the Immigation Judge's fding that the respondent wa interiewed by the
DHS baed on a refral fom state prison authorities, rather than racial profling (l.J. at 16). The
mere fact that a DHS ofcer mentione in a post-interiew repor that the rspondent speaks with
a accent is iufcient t establish that the DHS interiew itself was the product of impenissible
rcia profling. Moreover, even assuming aguendo that the OHS ofcer's statement in his
report that the respondent spoke wit a accent is inappropriate, we conclude that it wa not an
egegious violation of the Fourh Amendment or other libertes, ad did not undenine the reliability
1 Te rspndent does not meaingflly contend that he did not tell DHS ofcers he wa a United
States citizen or tat the evidence memorializing those statements is false or fawed in some materal
way. Istead, he age that all evidence of those statements should not b considered in these
proceedings beause they were obtned illegally. To the extent te respondent identifes minor
erors in the testiony ad procedures of the OHS ofcers, we conclude that these issues go to the
weigt to b given such evidence, not whether it is admissible (Respondent's Br. at 10-12).
2
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
Cite as: Keon Richmond, A097 519 056 (BIA Mar. 13, 2012)
A097 519 056
.
of te evidence in dispute. IS v. Lopez-Menoza, supra, at 1032, 1050-51 n.5; Almeida-Amara/
v. Gonzales, supra, at 235. I sum, we afn the Immigation Judge's denial of the respondent's
motion t supprss evidence.
Upon de novo review, we also afr the Immigtion Judge's conclusion that te respondent
did not meet his buden of proof to establish he is not inadmissible uder section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I)
of te Act fr purposes of his application fr adjument of st. We emphasize that there is no
dispute that the respondent falsely claimed to be a United States citizen. Thus, given that the
respondent is seeking adjustment of status, he must show that this false statement was not made"fr
ay purose or beneft under [te] Act (including section 274A) or any Federl or State law."2 See
Section 245(a) of te Act (rquiring, inter alia that a alien be admissible to the United States in
order to adjust status); 8 C.F.R. 1240.S(d) (stating that "if the evidence indicates that one or more
of the gounds fr mandator denial of the application fr relief may apply, the alien shall have the
burden of proving by a preponderace of the evidence that such grounds do not apply."). In this
regad, we conclude that te respondent's statement on appeal does not estblish clear eror in te
Immigtion Judge's fnding that the rspondent's testimony was not credible with respet to his
claim that he had a good faith blief he was citizn of te United States when be told OHS ofcers
tat he wa on at least to occasions (.J. at 6-14).
I paticular, we fnd no clea eror in Immigaton Judge's deterination that it is not plausible
that the rspondent believed he w a United States citizen given tat he wa bor in Trinidad ad
Tobao, resided there until he was 19 years old, ad then tveled to the Unted States uing a
Trinidadia passpor ad a vs obtained at the United States consulate in Babados (I.J. 10-11).
Moreover, we fnd no clea err in the Immigation Judge's deterinaton that the rspndent's
fiJure to coroborate his testmony udermines his credibility (I.J. at 10-11}. See Biao Yang
v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007) (per curia); Mater of JY-C-, 24 I&N Dec. 260,
264-66 (BIA 2007). The respondent claims his mother toJd him he wa a United States citizen his
whole life ad that she made all the araigments fr him t tavel to the United States in 2001 and
that this is the origin fr his understnding that he wa a United States citizn. However, despite the
coroboraton his mother may have been able provide, ad her apparent ability to provide testimony
2 Section 2 l 2(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) of the Act does not require the person maing the false claim to United
States citizenship know the claim is false at the time it is made to tgger inadmissibility. Even a
good fit false claim to United States citizenship will tigger inadmissabilit unless the false claim
falls within the exception set frh in section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(II) of te Act. Her, it is undisputed
tat the rspndent falsely claimed United States citizenhip and that ts claim does not fall wt
the exception. However, whether te respondent made the false claim "fr any purose or beneft
under [the] Act (including section 274A) or any Federal or State law" hinges on whether he knew
he wa not a Unted States citizen ad terefre intentionally made a false claim in order to avoid
being placed int rmoval proceedings. See section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)() of the Act. If te respondent
genuinely believed he w a United States citizen, communicting that sentiment to OHS ofcers
when querie as to his citizenship would have been a fase claim to United States citizenship,
becaue it wa not accuate, but it would not have ben made "fr ay purose or beneft under the
Act."
3
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
Cite as: Keon Richmond, A097 519 056 (BIA Mar. 13, 2012)
A097 519 056
or a af davit, the respondent did not present any evidence whatsoever fom hs moter or
adequately explain the reasons fr not doing so (I.J. at 10).
3
Finally, given our afrace of the Immigation Judge's adverse credibility fnding, we also
conclude tat the respondent h not met his buen of proof to show that he did not claim to be a
United States citzn to avoid being placed in removal proceedings (l.J. at 4-5). Upon de novo
review, we agee with the Immigtion Judge that a flse claim to United States citizenship made fr
te puose of avoiding being placed into remova proceedings is made "fr any purose or beneft
uder te Act" ad terfre renders te respondent inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I).
Moreover, inasmuch as the rspondent is not eligible fr a waiver of this ground of inadmissibilit,
te Imigtion Judge corectly deterined he is ineligible fr adjustent of st. Accordingly,
te fllowing order will b enterd.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.

FOR TE BOAR
"
...
3 Inamuch a we conclude uder our deferential stdad of review that implausibility of te
respndent's explaation of te bais fr his belief that he is a United States citizen, ad his failue
to coroborate that claim wth evidence fom his mother, are a sufcient bases fr te Immigion
Judge's advere creibility fnding baed on the totalit of the cirumstances, we decline to address
te Immigton Judge's other bases fr tat fnding. Even asuming argendo that te rmaining
baes fr te adverse crdibilit fnding ae eroneous, te respondent's statement on appeal does
not convince u that the overall credibility asessment is clearly eroneous.
4
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
Cite as: Keon Richmond, A097 519 056 (BIA Mar. 13, 2012)