In a published decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has attempted to define the conduct that falls under the false claim to U.S. citizenship inadmissibility and deportability grounds. The BIA laid out two requirements. First, the Immigration Judge must find direct or circumstantial evidence demonstrating that the false claim was made with the subjective intent of achieving a purpose or obtaining a benefit under the Act or any other Federal or State law. Second, the presence of a purpose or benefit must be determined objectively—that is, the United States citizenship must actually affect or matter to the purpose or benefit sought.
The BIA gave certain examples of conduct that might fall within or outside of the ambit of these provisions. For example, making a false claim to a bank in order to obtain a loan might not fall within the ambit of these provisions unless citizenship status is a prerequisite to obtaining the loan. Similarly, lying about one's citizenship status to the police for a minor offense (one unlikely to result in enforcement actions being taken by ICE under its Priority Enforcement Program) may not fall within the ambit of the provisions, but making a false claim to ICE in order to avoid removal proceedings would fall within the provisions.
The full text of Matter of Richmond can be found here: