Martha Octavia Koegel v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARTHA OCTAVIA KOEGEL,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-74973
Agency No. A079-160-734
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted June 4, 2013
Pasadena, California
Before: THOMAS, SILVERMAN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Martha Octavia Koegel seeks review of the BIA’s order denying
her application for adjustment of status on the basis that she is inadmissible under
8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii) and granting her voluntary departure. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and now deny the petition for review.
In 1997, Koegel pled guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 1542 for falsely
representing her place and date of birth on a United States passport application.
FILED
JUN 07 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
The conviction for making a false statement does not establish she falsely
represented her citizenship “for any purpose or benefit” under 8 U.S.C. §
1182(a)(6)(C)(ii). Smiley v. United States, 181 F.2d 505, 506 (9th Cir.), cert.
denied, 340 U.S. 817 (1950). However, the record evidence establishes that she
signed an oath (item 21) that contained the phrase “since acquiring United States
citizenship,” falsely represented she was born in Texas, filed a counterfeit Texas
birth certificate to support that assertion, and never maintained that she was merely
a United States national. We could deny the petition for review on those grounds
alone, but the BIA has already resolved a virtually identical case.
In Matter of Olga Barcenas-Barrera, 25 I. & N. Dec. 40 (BIA 2009), the
BIA found an alien inadmissible and therefore ineligible for adjustment of status
under § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii), where she had signed the exact same oath at issue here
and represented that she was born in Texas. Id. at 42-44. Since that was a
reasonable construction of a statutory ambiguity, we must defer to the agency’s
determination. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S.
837, 843-44 & n.11 (1984). Barcenas-Barrera is squarely on point here, and so
we must deny Koegel’s petition for review.
DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --