Does the doctrine of timely retraction extend to non immigration false claims to citizenship?

Question

There are statutes in the Immigration Nationality Act that punish willful material misrepresentations/fraud and false claims to citizenship in connection with any benefit under the law (See https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182 - INA 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) and INA 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)).

However, the Board of Immigration Appeals has recognized timely retraction of false statements. The Board has recognized that a timely retraction cures misrepresentations if the applicant voluntary and timely retracts the statement. In a precedential decision in the Matter of M- (BIA 1960) https://casetext.com/admin-law/in-the-matter-of-m-43#p119 the Board has held

We have held that where an alien in an immigration proceeding testifies falsely under oath as to a material fact but voluntarily and without prior exposure of his false testimony comes forward and corrects his testimony, perjury has not been committed and the charge based thereon is not sustained

Does this precedent apply to false claims to citizenship [INA 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)] where the "proceeding" is non immigration, say applying for a voter id and then immediately retracting the application?

It appears that US Citizenship and Immigration Services recognizes such a defense (https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-8-part-k-chapter-2#S-E).

Can the scope of the precedent expand to non immigration proceedings such as applying for a US passport, voter id etc? Is this seen everywhere in law where the holding applies to cases not thought of by the court setting the precedent? What is the rationale for this?

Answer 1

Can the scope of the precedent expand to non immigration proceedings such as applying for a US passport, voter id etc?

...

Does this precedent apply to false claims to citizenship [INA 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)] where the "proceeding" is non immigration, say applying for a voter id and then immediately retracting the application?

Yes. From your link:

For a noncitizen to be inadmissible based on false claim to U.S. citizenship, an officer must find all of the following elements:

• The noncitizen made a representation of U.S. citizenship;

• The representation was false;[1] and

• The noncitizen made the false representation for any purpose or benefit under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) or any other federal or state law.

The third bullet point encompasses "any benefit under any other federal law," which includes passport applications, and "any benefit under state law," which includes voter ID.

However, for a retraction to be timely, it must be made "before the conclusion of the same proceeding during which an individual made the misrepresentation." So, if you falsely claim to be a US citizen while applying for a passport or voter ID, the retraction is only timely if you make it before the document is issued or you are notified that your application has been refused.

If you go through with the passport or voter ID application without retracting the claim, and then later you are applying for some immigration benefit, it will be too late to engage the principle of timely retraction.

For example, disclosing in an adjustment application that one falsely claimed to be a citizen in completing a Form I-9, registering to vote, or seeking any other benefit would not be a timely retraction. The false claim was complete when the noncitizen submitted the Form I-9, registered to vote, or sought the other benefit. The disclosure of the false claim on the adjustment of status application, therefore, would be part of a different proceeding.

Answer 2

Does this precedent apply to false claims to citizenship [INA 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)] where the "proceeding" is non immigration, say applying for a voter id and then immediately retracting the application?

Not directly. The decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals are only directly binding upon the Article I immigration courts of the United States. In other contexts, the precedent is only persuasive authority.

A timely retraction of a statement can still be a defense to a offense based upon a misrepresentation, but the analysis is not precisely the same and it doesn't flow from immigration law. Instead, it flows from the general principles of the law of misrepresentations.

Can the scope of the precedent expand to non immigration proceedings such as applying for a US passport, voter id etc?

A voters ID and a U.S. Passport present to very different issues. A passport application is still governed by the Immigration and Nationality Act which is the same statute that governs other immigration matters. It is an immigration proceeding. A voter ID is not an immigration proceeding and the analysis above applies to that.

Is this seen everywhere in law where the holding applies to cases not thought of by the court setting the precedent? What is the rationale for this?

In general, precedents in one area of law are not directly applicable to other areas of law. The precedents that apply to criminal laws are not the precedents that apply to tax law are not the precedents that apply to immigration law.

More exactly, a binding precedent is a publicly announced resolution of a case by a court with jurisdiction over the court making the decision to which the binding precedent is to be applied in a case that is factually similar in all respects that matter with respect to the precedent. All other legal decisions can inform a judge's decision when there is no binding precedent to apply to a question, but is only a suggestion that is only as strong as its reasoning.

The concept of retraction of a statement almost certainly didn't originate in immigration law. The law of fraud is much, much older than immigration law which is comparatively recent concept in its modern form. At some point, a long time ago, an immigration judge borrowed the idea from someplace else and applied it in a immigration context, not as binding precedent but as part of the arsenal of ideas that a judge has at his or her disposal in order to justify a legal resolution of a case. This can happen in the other direction too if a judge finds that the reasoning is analogous and makes sense in the other case.