(A)  Effective Date.  This is a new ground of deportation created in 1996 by IIRAIRA.[1284]  This section therefore applies to representations made on or after Sept. 30, 1996.[1285]

[1284] Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRAIRA) (enacted as Division C of Pub. L. No. 104-208, § 344(b), 110 Stat. 3009) (creating INA § 237(a)(3)(D), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(3)(D)).

[1285] IIRAIRA § 344(c).

Ninth Circuit

DISJUNCTIVE STATEMENT - MEANING
United States v. Karaouni, 379 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. Aug. 24, 2004) ("Karaouni contends that no rational trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that his verification of the printed statement on the I-9 Form constituted a violation of 911 because the printed statement was phrased in the disjunctive. See Prince v. Jacoby, 303 F.3d 1074, 1080-81 (9th Cir.2002) (explaining that the use of the disjunctive "or" suggests that terms in a sequence should not be interpreted as synonyms). According to Karaouni, by checking the box next to the printed statement, which the government presumably drafted with care, he merely claimed that he was a citizen or a national, not that he was a citizen and not that he was a citizen and a national.").

FALSE CLAIM TO US CITIZENSHIP - ELEMENTS OF CRIMINAL OFFENSE
United States v. Karaouni, 379 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. Aug. 24, 2004) ("There are three essential elements of a 911 violation. The government had the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) Karaouni made a false claim of U.S. citizenship; (2) his misrepresentation was willful (i.e. voluntary and deliberate); and (3) it was conveyed to someone with good reason to inquire into his citizenship status. United States v. Romero-Avila, 210 F.3d 1017, 1020-21 (9th Cir.2000); Chow Bing Kew v. United States, 248 F.2d 466, 469 (9th Cir.1957). It is the first element that is at issue on appeal. The first two elements are explicitly set forth in the statute: "Whoever falsely and willfully represents himself to be a citizen of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both." 18 U.S.C. 911. The third element is a limiting construction that we have adopted in response to First Amendment overbreadth challenges. See United States v. Esparza-Ponce, 193 F.3d 1133, 1137-38 (9th Cir.1999); Smiley v. United States, 181 F.2d 505, 507-08 (9th Cir.1950).").

FALSE CLAIM TO US CITIZENSHIP - SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE
United States v. Karaouni, 379 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. Aug. 24, 2004) (federal conviction of violating 18 U.S.C. 911 reversed, since, by checking box on an INS I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification Form next to the following printed statement: "I attest, under penalty of perjury, that I am ... [a] citizen or national of the United States" noncitizen did not thereby represent himself to be a United States citizen, as required to support his conviction of falsely and willfully representing himself to be a citizen of the United States, because no rational juror could find beyond a reasonable doubt that, by checking the box on the I-9 Form, he made a claim to be a U.S. citizen as opposed to a U.S. national and a claim to be a U.S. national, even if false, does not constitute a violation of this statute).

Other

FALSE CLAIM TO U.S. CITIZENSHIP - FACTUAL DEFENSES
Answering "Yes" to the question, "Were you born in the U.S.?" is not the equivalent of making a false claim to United States citizenship. This is a defense to a criminal charge of making a false claim to U.S. citizenship. 8 U.S.C. 911. A person could be born in the United States and subsequently renounce citizenship or be expatriated. A child of a diplomat can be born in the United States, yet not be a citizen of the United States. Thanks to Barbara Hines for this information. It is also possible to argue that an intent to avoid a detriment under the Immigration and Nationality Act is not the same as an intention to obtain a benefit under the Act. Thanks to Lynn Marcus for this point.