First Circuit Reverses BIA Denial of Adjustment of Status for Impermissible Factfinding

Johan Jose Taveras Martínez, a native and citizen of Venezuela, sought to adjust his status based on his marriage to Jennifer Ríos, a United States citizen. The dispute centers on whether the BIA improperly substituted its own factual findings for those made by the Immigration Judge regarding Martínez’s use of false identification documents.

Martínez entered the United States in 2001 with his mother and later married Ríos in the Dominican Republic in 2008. After initially withdrawing a petition for his status, Ríos filed a new Form I-130 in 2017, which was approved, granting him eligibility for adjustment of status.

In 2014, Martínez reentered the U.S. on a B1 visa but remained after it expired. He subsequently purchased a false Social Security card and birth certificate under the identity of Jose González, a U.S. citizen from Puerto Rico, to obtain employment. He used these documents to secure a driver’s license and work at various jobs, including as a DoorDash delivery driver.

Martínez was arrested in 2017 after police discovered he was using a false identity. He faced charges including identity theft and possessing a fraudulently obtained driver’s license, though the prosecution later dropped these charges. He also had a prior arrest for assault and battery in 2016, for which he was found not guilty by a jury.

In 2022, Martínez filed for adjustment of status. At a hearing in January 2023, the Immigration Judge granted the application, finding Martínez’s testimony credible and noting his positive discretionary factors, including his marriage to a U.S. citizen, his U.S. citizen child, and his employment. The IJ acknowledged the use of false documents but determined the evidence was insufficient to deny the application.

The Department of Homeland Security appealed to the BIA, which reversed the IJ’s decision in July 2024. The BIA considered Martínez’s criminal behavior, specifically providing false identification to police, and concluded that his positive equities did not outweigh this conduct. It ordered Martínez removed to Venezuela.

Martínez petitioned the First Circuit for review, arguing the BIA failed to apply the clear error standard to the IJ’s factual findings and engaged in impermissible de novo factfinding regarding his intent. The government argued the BIA merely reweighed evidence and that the court lacked jurisdiction to review discretionary determinations.

The First Circuit held that it had jurisdiction because the petition raised questions of law regarding the standard of review applied by the BIA. The court emphasized that the BIA cannot engage in de novo review of factual findings determined by an immigration judge, except for taking administrative notice of commonly known facts.

The court found that the BIA’s reliance on Martínez’s intent behind using false documents constituted impermissible factfinding. Because the BIA did not merely reweigh evidence but made its own factual determinations, the court reversed and remanded the case to the BIA for proceedings consistent with this opinion.