Reference no: EM132215878

David Rodriguez, a citizen of Mexico, entered the United States without inspection at El Paso, Texas, on or about July 22, 1996. During his time in the United States, he lived in Minnesota and fraudulently obtained a Texas birth certificate, a Minnesota driver’s license and a social security card in the name of Oscar Martinez, and a social security card and legal resident card in the name of David Rodriguez Silva. He sought to obtain employment with a private employer by checking a box on a Form I-9 indicating that he was a “citizen or national of the United States” and by submitting the fraudulent Martinez driver’s license and a social security card in support for his claim. On April 19, 2001, Rodriguez married Veronica Vasquez, a U.S. citizen. On April 24, 2001, he submitted an immediate relative immigrant visa petition, which the immigration and naturalization service (now the USCIS) approved. The INS informed Rodriguez that he would be considered for lawful permanent residence status subject to his application for adjustment of status. On February 26, 2002, Rodriguez and his wife appeared for n interview with a district adjudications officer as part of the process to adjust his status. Rodriguez brought the fraudulent documents. After the interview, the adjudications officer prepared a sworn statement that included questions and answers from the interview. Rodriguez reviewed and signed the statement. In the interview and in his resulting sworn statement, Rodriguez admitted that he knew that with the use of fraudulent documents he had made a claim to a government agency that he was a citizen of the United States. The INS denied Rodriguez application for adjustment of status because he had made a false claim that he was a U.S. citizen. On appeal of the agency’s decision, the court can either affirm the decision in which case Rodriguez would be deported back to Mexico or overlook his earlier employment history and order his change of status based upon his marriage to an American citizen. What are the ethical considerations favoring each of these outcomes? What would you do, if you were the judge and had discretion to rule either way?