Applicants for naturalization, VAWA, cancellation of removal, voluntary departure, and some other immigration benefits are required to show good moral character (GMC) during a particular timeframe. Under INA §101(f)(6), an applicant is barred from establishing GMC if he or she has given false testimony for the purpose of obtaining any immigration benefit during the relevant statutory period. Last month, the Board of Immigration Appeals held that an individual cannot establish good moral character under 101(f)(6) if, during the requisite period, he or she provided false testimony under oath in proceedings before an immigration judge with the subjective intent of obtaining immigration benefits. Matter of Gomez-Beletran, 26 I&N Dec. 765 (BIA 2016).

The case involved a respondent who revealed one conviction on his application for cancellation of removal. In immigration court two years later, he initially testified before the immigration judge that he had no convictions. After being reminded by his attorney of the conviction listed on his cancellation application, the respondent acknowledged that conviction but affirmed that he had no other convictions or arrests. Upon cross-examination by the Department of Homeland Security, he reaffirmed repeatedly that he had no other criminal history. After the DHS trial attorney proceeded to confront the respondent about a series of other offenses, he eventually admitted to five additional arrests or convictions that were not included on his application. Based on this false testimony, the immigration judge found he was precluded from establishing GMC and statutorily ineligible for cancellation.

The BIA dismissed the respondent’s appeal. According to the BIA, the respondent was asked about his criminal history several times during the hearing and had ample opportunity to reveal his arrests and convictions prior to being confronted by DHS. The fact that he eventually admitted to the additional five offenses does not undermine the fact that he initially made false statements and his later admission does not constitute a voluntary and timely “retraction.” While a false testimony determination requires a case-by-case assessment, the BIA agreed with the immigration judge’s decision that the respondent “actively sought to mislead the court” and made false statements under oath with the subjective intent to deceive. 

To read the full decision, click here.