Chapter 2 - Determining False Claim to U.S. Citizenship

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.

A. Overview of Inadmissibility Determination

The officer should examine all facts and circumstances when evaluating inadmissibility for falsely claiming U.S. citizenship. The officer should follow the steps in the table below to determine inadmissibility.

Overview of Inadmissibility Determination

Step		For More Information
Step 1	Determine whether noncitizen falsely claimed to be a U.S. citizen.	Section B, Claim to U.S. Citizenship [8 USCIS-PM K.2(B)]
Step 2	Determine whether noncitizen falsely made the representation on or after September 30, 1996.	Section C, Claim Made On or After September 30, 1996 [8 USCIS-PM K.2(C)]
Step 3	Determine whether noncitizen’s false claim to U.S. citizenship was for the purpose of obtaining a benefit under the INA or under any other federal or state law.	Section D, Purpose or Benefit under INA or Any State or Federal Law [8 USCIS-PM K.2(D)]
Step 4	Determine whether noncitizen timely retracted the false claim to U.S. citizenship.	Section E, Timely Retraction [8 USCIS-PM K.2(E)]
Step 5	Determine whether noncitizen is exempt from inadmissibility because a statutory exception applies.[2]	Chapter 4, Exceptions and Waivers, Section A, Applicability [8 USCIS-PM K.4(A)] and Section B, Exception [8 USCIS-PM K.4(B)]
Step 6	Determine whether a waiver of inadmissibility is available.	Chapter 4, Exceptions and Waivers, Section C, Waiver [8 USCIS-PM K.4(C)]

B. Claim to U.S. Citizenship

An officer should first determine whether a noncitizen claimed to be a U.S. citizen.

1. Form of Claim

A noncitizen may claim to be a U.S. citizen in oral interviews, written applications, or by submitting evidence. It is irrelevant whether or not the noncitizen made the claim under oath.

2. Representation Before Government Official Not Necessary

Unlike inadmissibility for fraud and misrepresentation,^[3] a noncitizen does not have to make the claim of U.S. citizenship to a U.S. government official exercising authority under the immigration and nationality laws. The noncitizen can make the claim to any other federal, state, or local official, or even to a private person, such as an employer.^[4]

3. Distinction between a U.S. Citizen and a U.S. National

U.S. citizen status is related to, but is not the same as, U.S. national status. A U.S. national is any person owing permanent allegiance to the United States and may include a U.S. citizen or a non-citizen U.S. national.^[5] A non-citizen U.S. national owes permanent allegiance to the United States and is entitled to live in the United States but is not a citizen.^[6] A U.S. citizen is any person born in the United States or who otherwise acquires U.S. citizenship at or after birth.^[7]

4. Claiming to be a U.S. National

A noncitizen who falsely claims to be a U.S. national but not a U.S. citizen is not inadmissible for false claim to U.S. citizenship.^[8] The noncitizen, however, may be inadmissible for fraud or willful misrepresentation if all other elements for that ground are met.^[9]

The Employment Eligibility Verification form (Form I-9) used prior to April 3, 2009, asked the person completing it whether the person is a “citizen or national” of the United States and required checking a box corresponding to the answer. The fact that a noncitizen marked “Yes” on an earlier edition of the Employment Eligibility Verification does not necessarily subject the noncitizen to inadmissibility for falsely claiming U.S. citizenship, because the earlier edition of the form did not distinguish a claim of “nationality” from a claim of “citizenship.”^[10]

An affirmative answer to this question does not, by itself, provide sufficient evidence that would permit a reasonable person to find the noncitizen falsely represented U.S. citizenship because of the question’s ambiguity.^[11] ​

In these cases, the applicant must demonstrate to an officer that he or she understands the distinction between a U.S. citizen and non-U.S. citizen national.^[12] The applicant has the burden of showing that he or she was claiming to be a non-U.S. citizen national as opposed to a U.S. citizen. The applicant’s inadmissibility for a false claim to U.S. citizenship depends on whether the applicant meets the burden of showing that he or she intended to claim to be a U.S. national when completing the Form I-9. 

This inquiry is not necessary if the applicant used the April 3, 2009, edition or any later edition of the Form I-9, because these editions clearly differentiate between “Citizen of the United States” and “Non-citizen National of the United States.”

C. Claim Made On or After September 30, 1996^[13]

An officer should determine whether the claim to U.S. citizenship occurred on or after September 30, 1996.^[14] If an applicant claimed U.S. citizenship before September 30, 1996, the applicant may be inadmissible for fraud or willful misrepresentation^[15] but not for falsely claiming U.S. citizenship.^[16]

D. Purpose or Benefit under INA or Any State or Federal Law

1. Any Purpose or Benefit

The law only makes a noncitizen inadmissible for falsely claiming U.S. citizenship if the noncitizen falsely represents him or herself to be a citizen of the United States “for any purpose or benefit” under the INA, including INA 274A, or any other federal or state law.^[17]

The provision for inadmissibility based on false claim to U.S. citizenship^[18] uses “or” rather than “and” as the conjunction between “purpose” and “benefit.” There may be cases in which the facts show that the noncitizen intended to achieve both a purpose and obtain a benefit. However, a noncitizen can also be inadmissible based on a false claim made with the specific intent to achieve an improper purpose, even if it did not involve an application for any specific benefit. 

Furthermore, U.S. citizenship must affect or matter to the purpose or benefit sought. That is, U.S. citizenship must be material to the purpose or benefit sought.^[19]

In sum, even though a noncitizen may have falsely claimed U.S. citizenship, he or she is only inadmissible if: 

• The noncitizen made the false claim with the subjective intent of obtaining a benefit or achieving a purpose under the INA or any other federal or state law, as shown by direct or circumstantial evidence; and 

• U.S. citizenship affects or matters to the purpose or benefit sought, that is, it must be material to obtaining the benefit or achieving the purpose. 

2. Intent to Obtain a Benefit

Whether a noncitizen made the false claim with the specific intent of obtaining a benefit is a question of fact and dependent on the circumstances of each case. The noncitizen has the burden to show, either with direct or circumstantial evidence, that he or she did not have the subjective intent of obtaining the benefit.^[20]

Whether U.S. citizenship actually affects or matters to the benefit sought is determined objectively. If the benefit requires U.S. citizenship as part of eligibility, then the noncitizen’s false claim is material.^[21] If the claim to citizenship has a natural tendency to influence the official decision to grant or deny the benefit sought, the claim is material.^[22] It is the noncitizen’s burden to show that U.S. citizenship is not relevant to obtaining the benefit. 

If U.S. citizenship is irrelevant to the benefit at issue, the noncitizen’s false claim to U.S. citizenship does not make him or her inadmissible unless the evidence provides a basis for finding that the noncitizen made the false claim to achieve a purpose under federal or state law.

For purposes of a false claim to U.S. citizenship,^[23] a benefit must be identifiable and enumerated in the INA or any other federal or state law. 

A benefit includes but is not limited to: ​

• A U.S. passport;^[24]

• Entry into the United States;^[25] and

• Obtaining employment, loans, or any other benefit under federal or state law, if citizenship is a requirement for eligibility.^[26]

3. Intent to Achieve a Purpose

Whether a noncitizen made the false claim with the specific intent of achieving a purpose is a question of fact and dependent on the circumstances of each case. The noncitizen has the burden to show, either with direct or circumstantial evidence, that he or she did not have the subjective intent of achieving the purpose.^[27]

Whether U.S. citizenship actually affects or matters to the purpose is determined objectively. U.S. citizenship affects or matters to the purpose, and is material, if it has a natural tendency to influence the applicant’s ability to achieve the purpose.^[28] It is the noncitizen’s burden to show that U.S. citizenship is not relevant to achieving the purpose. 

If U.S. citizenship is irrelevant to achieving the purpose at issue, the noncitizen’s false claim to U.S. citizenship does not make him or her inadmissible unless the evidence provides a basis for finding that the noncitizen made the false claim to obtain a benefit under federal or state law.

The term “purpose” includes avoiding negative legal consequences. Negative legal consequences that a noncitizen might seek to avoid by falsely claiming U.S. citizenship include but are not limited to: 

• Removal proceedings;^[29]

• Inspection by immigration officials;^[30] and

• Prohibition on unauthorized employment.^[31]

Purpose, however, is not limited to avoiding negative legal consequences. The purpose may also be something more positive. For example, a false claim would be for an improper purpose if a benefit under federal or state law is not restricted to U.S. citizens, but a noncitizen falsely claims to be a U.S. citizen when seeking the benefit to avoid an eligibility or evidentiary requirement that does not apply to citizens seeking the benefit.

Example 

In the course of an arrest for disorderly conduct, a noncitizen falsely claimed that he was born in Puerto Rico. However, the facts of the case did not support that he had falsely claimed U.S. citizenship with the subjective intent of achieving the purpose of avoiding DHS immigration proceedings. Furthermore, the police could not have conferred such a result, and the noncitizen’s status as a U.S. citizen was immaterial to the arrest proceedings because the police treated U.S. citizens and noncitizens the same.^[32]

Example

A noncitizen stated twice during DHS interrogation that he was a U.S. citizen. He failed to show he had not made this claim to U.S. citizenship with the subjective intent of achieving the purpose of avoiding removal proceedings. He also failed to show that citizenship did not affect removal proceedings. Therefore, the noncitizen was inadmissible for falsely claiming U.S. citizenship.^[33]

Example

An employer made a job offer to a noncitizen who did not have employment authorization. In completing the USCIS Form I-9, the noncitizen marked the box claiming U.S. citizenship with the intent to avoid the need to obtain and present a valid and unexpired employment authorization document. The noncitizen is inadmissible since the noncitizen made the false claim for the purpose of avoiding additional requirements under the immigration laws.^[34]

Example

A noncitizen applied for a license under state law. The eligibility is not restricted to U.S. citizens but a noncitizen must submit additional evidence that a U.S. citizen is not required to submit. Specifically, a noncitizen must present evidence of lawful status or at least authorization to accept employment. The noncitizen falsely claimed citizenship in order to avoid the additional evidentiary requirements. The noncitizen is inadmissible since the noncitizen made the false claim for the purpose of avoiding additional requirements under state law.^[35]

4. Representation Must Be for Own Benefit

A noncitizen is only inadmissible if the person makes a misrepresentation for their own benefit. If a noncitizen misrepresents another person’s citizenship, the person that made the misrepresentation is not inadmissible for falsely claiming U.S. citizenship.^[36]

5. For Purpose of Coming into the United States

A noncitizen who makes a successful false claim to U.S. citizenship or nationality at the port-of-entry and who is allowed into the United States has not been admitted. In order for a noncitizen to be admitted, CBP must have authorized the noncitizen to enter the United States after the noncitizen came to the port-of-entry and sought admission as a noncitizen.^[37]

However, the law and precedents relating to what qualifies as the admission of a noncitizen do not apply to U.S. citizens and nationals. U.S. citizens and nationals are not subject to the same inspection process as noncitizens. If CBP believes the person is a U.S. citizen or national, CBP cannot prevent the person’s return to the United States. It is well-settled that someone who is allowed to come into the United States as a U.S. citizen or national has not been admitted.^[38]

Therefore, a noncitizen who comes into the United States under a false claim to U.S. citizenship is not only inadmissible for falsely claiming U.S. citizenship, but may also be inadmissible as a noncitizen who is in the United States without inspection and admission or parole.^[39]

A noncitizen who comes into the United States based on a false claim to U.S. nationality is not inadmissible under the provision relating to false claims to citizenship.^[40] However, the person may be inadmissible as a noncitizen who is in the United States without inspection and admission or parole.

6. False Claim Made by an Agent or Representative

If an applicant’s attorney or agent makes the false representation, the applicant is held responsible. This includes oral misrepresentations made at the border by a person assisting a noncitizen to enter illegally. Furthermore, a noncitizen cannot deny responsibility for any misrepresentation made by the noncitizen based on the advice of another person.

E. Timely Retraction

​Case law relating to the inadmissibility ground for fraud or willful misrepresentation has long recognized that a noncitizen is not inadmissible if he or she made a timely retraction of the fraud or misrepresentation.^[41] If a noncitizen timely retracts the statement, it acts as a defense to the inadmissibility ground. A USCIS officer would then decide the case as if the fraud or misrepresentation had never happened.

In principle, a noncitizen might also timely retract a false claim to U.S. citizenship. If the noncitizen does so, he or she would not be inadmissible for this inadmissibility ground. The retraction has to be voluntary and timely in order to be effective.^[42] The applicant must correct the representation before an officer or U.S. government official challenges the applicant’s truthfulness and before the conclusion of the proceeding during which the applicant gave false testimony. A retraction can be voluntary and timely if made in response to an officer’s question during which the officer gives the applicant a chance to explain or correct a potential misrepresentation.

Admitting to the false representation after USCIS has challenged the veracity of the claim is not a timely retraction.^[43] For example, an applicant’s recantation of the false testimony is neither voluntary nor timely if made a year later and only after it becomes apparent that the disclosure of the falsity of the statements is imminent.^[44] A retraction or recantation can only be timely if the noncitizen makes it in the same proceeding in which the noncitizen gives the false testimony or misrepresentation.^[45]​

​Further, a retraction or recantation of a false claim to U.S. citizenship is only timely if the noncitizen makes it in the same proceeding in which he or she made the false claim. 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.

Footnotes

---

[^ 1] In previous guidance, a noncitizen needed to have made the false representation knowingly in order to be inadmissible under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(ii). However, in Matter of Zhang, 27 I&N Dec. 569 (BIA 2019), the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) noted that unlike INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i), the plain language of INA 237(a)(3)(D)(i) does not require an intent to falsely represent citizenship to trigger this ground of removability. The BIA in Zhang reasoned that “the absence of a ‘knowing’ or ‘willful’ requirement for false claims to citizenship in sections 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) and 237(a)(3)(D)(i) indicates that there was no congressional intent to include one.” See Matter of Zhang, 27 I&N Dec. 569, 571, n.3 (citing Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557, 578 (2006)). Therefore, for the purposes of inadmissibility under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(ii), a noncitizen need not intend to falsely claim citizenship in order to trigger this ground of inadmissibility.

[^ 2] See INA 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(II).

[^ 3] See INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i).

[^ 4] For example, the noncitizen could make a false claim to U.S. citizenship to comply with the employment verification requirements under INA 274A.

[^ 5] See INA 101(a)(22).

[^ 6] See INA 308. As of 2014, American Samoa (including Swains Island) is the only outlying possession of the United States, as defined under INA 101(a)(29). See Volume 12, Citizenship and Naturalization [12 USCIS-PM].

[^ 7] See U.S. Constitution, amend. XIV. See INA 301. See INA 309. See Volume 12, Citizenship and Naturalization [12 USCIS-PM].

[^ 8] See INA 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I).

[^ 9] For example, if the false claim to U.S. nationality was made to a U.S. government official in seeking an immigration benefit. See INA 212(a)(6)(C). See Part J, Fraud and Willful Misrepresentation [8 USCIS-PM J].

[^ 10] In Ateka v. Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 954 (8th Cir. 2004) and in Rodriguez v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 773 (8th Cir. 2008), the applicants specifically testified that they claimed to be citizens when checking the particular box on Form I-9. Based on this testimony, the court determined that the applicants were inadmissible on account of falsely claiming U.S. citizenship. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) non-precedent decisions seem to draw on this distinction. See Matter of Oduor, 2005 WL 1104203 (BIA 2005). See Matter of Soriano-Salas, 2007 WL 2074526 (BIA 2007). 

[^ 11] See U.S. v. Karaouni, 379 F.3d 139 (9th Cir. 2004).

[^ 12] In Ateka v. Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 954 (8th Cir. 2004), Matter of Oduor, 2005 WL 1104203 (BIA 2005), and Matter of Soriano-Salas, 2007 WL 2074526 (BIA, June 5, 2007), for example, the evidence showed that the applicant had no idea what it meant to be a non-citizen national and that the applicant intended to claim that the applicant was a citizen. 

[^ 13] INA 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) makes a noncitizen subject to removal as inadmissible. INA 237(a)(3)(D)(i) is identical but applies to a noncitizen who has been admitted but has become removable on account of the false representation. Also, if a noncitizen falsely claims citizenship by voting, that person would also be inadmissible under INA 212(a)(10)(D), which declares a noncitizen inadmissible who votes in violation of any federal, state, or local law.

[^ 14] The date this inadmissibility ground became effective. See Section 344(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), Pub. L. 104-208 (PDF) (September 30, 1996).

[^ 15] See INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i). For more information on inadmissibility based on fraud and willful misrepresentation, see Part J, Fraud and Willful Misrepresentation [8 USCIS-PM J].

[^ 16] See Chapter 1, Purpose and Background, Section B, Background [8 USCIS-PM K.1(B)].

[^ 17] See INA 212(a)(6)(C)(ii).

[^ 18] See INA 212(a)(6)(C)(ii).

[^ 19] See Matter of Richmond, 26 I&N Dec. 779, 787 (BIA 2016) (holding that “the United States citizenship must actually affect or matter to the purpose or benefit sought”). But see Patel v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 971 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir. 2020) (en banc) (holding that a false claim to U.S. citizenship does not have to be material in order to result in inadmissibility). Officers should confer with local counsel if adjudicating a case in the Eleventh Circuit that involves inadmissibility based on false claim to U.S. citizenship. For more information on materiality, see Part J, Fraud and Willful Misrepresentation, Chapter 3, Adjudicating Inadmissibility, Section E, Materiality [8 USCIS-PM J.3(E)].

[^ 20] See Matter of Richmond, 26 I&N Dec. 779, 786-87 (BIA 2016). See Crocock v. Holder, 670 F.3d 400 (2nd Cir. 2012).

[^ 21] See Matter of Richmond, 26 I&N Dec. 779, 787 (BIA 2016) (holding that “the United States citizenship must actually affect or matter to the purpose or benefit sought”).  

[^ 22] See Kungys​ v. United States​, 485 U.S. 759, 770-72 (1988). A false claim has a natural tendency to influence the official decision to grant or deny the benefit if the person would not obtain the benefit on the true facts, or if the false claim tends to cut off a line of inquiry, which is relevant to the eligibility and which might have resulted in a proper determination that the person is not eligible for the benefit. 

[^ 23] See INA 212(a)(6)(C)(ii).

[^ 24] See Matter of Barcenas-Barrera (PDF), 25 I&N Dec. 40 (BIA 2009). See Matter of Villanueva (PDF), 19 I&N Dec. 101, 103 (BIA 1984).

[^ 25] See Matter of Barcenas-Barrera (PDF), 25 I&N Dec. 40 (BIA 2009). See Jamieson v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 765 (8th Cir. 2005). See Reid v. INS, 420 U.S. 619 (1975). 

[^ 26] See Dakura v. Holder, 772 F.3d 994 (4th Cir. 2014). See Crocock v. Holder, 670 F.3d 400, 403 (2nd Cir. 2012). See Castro v. Att'y Gen. of U.S., 671 F.3d 356, 368 (3rd Cir. 2012). See Rodriguez v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 773 (8th Cir. 2008). See Kechkar v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 1080 (10th Cir. 2007). See Theodros v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 396 (5th Cir. 2007). See Matter of Bett (PDF), 26 I&N Dec. 437 (BIA 2014).

[^ 27] See Matter of Richmond, 26 I&N Dec. 779, 786-87 (BIA 2016). See Crocock v. Holder, 670 F.3d 400 (2nd Cir. 2012).

[^ 28] See Kungys​ v. United States​, 485 U.S. 759, 770-72 (1988). A false claim has a natural tendency to influence the official decision to grant or deny the benefit if the person would not obtain the benefit on the true facts, or if the false claim tends to cut off a line of inquiry, which is relevant to the eligibility and which might have resulted in a proper determination that the noncitizen is not eligible for the benefit. See Matter of Richmond, 26 I&N Dec. 779, 786-87 (BIA 2016). But see Patel v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 971 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir. 2020) (en banc) (holding that a false claim to U.S. citizenship does not have to be material in order to result in inadmissibility). Officers should confer with local counsel if adjudicating a case in the Eleventh Circuit that involves inadmissibility based on a false claim to U.S. citizenship.

[^ 29] See Matter of Richmond, 26 I&N Dec. 779 (BIA 2016). 

[^ 30] See Matter of Pinzon (PDF), 26 I&N Dec. 189 (BIA 2013). See Matter of F- (PDF), 9 I&N Dec. 54 (BIA 1960).

[^ 31] See Kechkar v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 1080 (10th Cir. 2007).

[^ 32] See Castro v. Att'y Gen. of U.S., 671 F.3d 356, 368 (3rd Cir. 2012). According to the court, the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) and the BIA conclusion that Castro made a false claim of U.S. citizenship for the purpose of evading detection by immigration authorities seemed to have been built solely on the assumption that this was a reasonable purpose to ascribe to Castro because he was undocumented. Therefore, the court decided that the BIA and the IJ erred in coming to this conclusion. The purpose imputed by the BIA to Castro would have applied to virtually any false claim to citizenship made by a noncitizen unlawfully present in the country because the absence of legal status always provides a reason to wish to avoid the attention of DHS. Therefore, the construction threatened to read the limiting language—the requirement that the “purpose or benefit” be “under” the INA or any other federal or state law—out of INA 212(a)(6)(C)(ii) entirely.

[^ 33] See Matter of Richmond, 26 I&N Dec. 779 (BIA 2016). But see Patel v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 971 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir. 2020) (en banc) (holding that a false claim to U.S. citizenship does not have to be material in order to result in inadmissibility). Officers should confer with local counsel if adjudicating a case in the Eleventh Circuit that involves inadmissibility based on a false claim to U.S. citizenship.

[^ 34] See Matter of Bett (PDF), 26 I&N Dec. 437 (BIA 2014).

[^ 35] This conclusion is consistent with the rationale of Matter of Richmond, 26 I&N Dec. 779 (BIA 2016). 

[^ 36] See Department of State Cable (no. 97-State-174342) (September 17, 1997). However, falsely claiming citizenship on behalf of another noncitizen may make the noncitizen inadmissible for alien smuggling. See Matter of M-R, 6 I&N Dec. 259, 260 (BIA 1954).

[^ 37] See Matter of Quilantan (PDF), 25 I&N Dec. 285 (BIA 2010). See Volume 7, Adjustment of Status, Part B, 245(a) Adjustment, Chapter 2, Eligibility Requirements, Section A, “Inspected and Admitted” or “Inspected and Paroled” [7 USCIS-PM B.2(A)(2)].

[^ 38] See Reid v. INS, 420 U.S. 619 (1975). See Matter of Pinzon (PDF), 26 I&N Dec. 189 (BIA 2013). See Matter of S-, 9 I&N Dec. 599 (PDF) (BIA 1962).

[^ 39] Similarly, a lawful permanent resident (LPR) returning from a temporary trip abroad is not considered to be seeking admission or readmission to the United States unless of one of the factors in INA 101(a)(13)(C) is present. See Matter of Collado-Munoz (PDF), 21 I&N Dec. 1061 (BIA 1998). Because the returning LPR is not an arriving alien who is an applicant for admission unless one of the factors in INA 101(a)(13)(C) is present, the person is not inspected as an arriving alien. If the person makes a false claim to LPR status at a port-of-entry and if the person is permitted to enter, then the person has not been admitted for purposes of INA 101(a)(13)(A).

[^ 40] See INA 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I).

[^ 41] See Matter of R-R-, 3 I&N Dec. 823 (BIA 1949). See Matter of M-, 9 I&N Dec. 118 (PDF) (BIA 1960) (also cited by Matter of R-S-J- (PDF), 22 I&N Dec. 863 (BIA 1999)). See 9 FAM 302.9-4(B)(3)(f), Timely Retraction. 

[^ 42] “If the witness withdraws the false testimony of his own volition and without delay, the false statement and its withdrawal may be found to constitute one inseparable incident out of which an intention to deceive cannot rightly be drawn.” See Llanos-Senarrilos v. United States, 177 F.2d 164, 165 (9th Cir. 1949). See Matter of R-R-, 3 I&N Dec. 823 (BIA 1949). See Matter of Namio (PDF), 14 I&N Dec. 412 (BIA 1973), referring to Matter of M-, 9 I&N Dec. 118 (PDF) (BIA 1960) and Llanos-Senarrilos v. United States, 177 F.2d 164 (9th Cir. 1949).

[^ 43] See Matter of Namio (PDF), 14 I&N Dec. 412 (BIA 1973).

[^ 44] See Matter of Namio (PDF), 14 I&N Dec. 412 (BIA 1973).

[^ 45] See Llanos-Senarrilos v. United States, 177 F.2d 164, 165 (9th Cir. 1949).