Last reviewed:
A False Claim to U.S. Citizenship
This ground, INA §212(a)(6)(C)(ii), is separate from ordinary misrepresentation and is treated far more harshly. It is also widely described as unwaivable, which is true of one visa route and false of the other.
From 9 FAM 302.9-5, read on 21 September 2026. Not legal advice — if this ground is in play for you, it is a lawyer's question, not a guide's.
What the ground covers
INA 212(a)(6)(C)(ii) renders ineligible any individual who, after September 30, 1996, falsely claimed U.S. citizenship to obtain a U.S. passport, entry into the United States, or any other benefit under any U.S. State or Federal law.
The Board of Immigration Appeals narrowed that in Matter of Richmond, 26 I&N Dec. 779 (BIA 2016), and the manual quotes the test:
…where there is direct or circumstantial evidence that the false claim was made with the subjective intent of obtaining a purpose or benefit under the [INA] or any other Federal or State law, and where United States citizenship actually affects or matters to the purpose or benefit sought.
Both halves matter. There must be intent to obtain a benefit, and citizenship must actually make a difference to that benefit.
It is not retroactive
The provisions of INA 212(a)(6)(C)(ii) are not retroactive. It applies only to individuals who made false claims to U.S. citizenship on or after September 30, 1996.
A false claim before that date is not this ground — though the manual notes it may fall under §212(a)(6)(C)(i) instead, which has its own analysis and, importantly, its own waiver provisions.
Silence, again, is not a claim
There is a difference between making a false claim to U.S. citizenship and simply failing to volunteer information… Silence or the failure to volunteer information does not in itself constitute a false claim to citizenship under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(ii).
The same caution applies as with misrepresentation: a question you answered is not silence. And a claim made by someone else on your behalf does not shield you where the officer finds "that the applicant was aware at the time of the misrepresentation made on their behalf."
Two defences the manual recognises
From a DHS Office of the General Counsel opinion of 6 December 2014, the manual records two affirmative defences — both carried by the applicant, and both to the demanding standard of "clearly and beyond doubt":
- Only a knowingly false claim supports the charge. Someone who did not know the claim was false may establish that.
- Age and capacity: that the person was under 18 at the time and "lacked the capacity (i.e., the maturity and the judgment) to understand and appreciate the nature and consequences of a false claim to citizenship."
Note that the second defence is not simply "I was a minor" — the manual pairs age with capacity, and requires both.
The manual also says that someone refused under this ground in the past who believes their case meets these requirements "may follow standard post application procedures for submitting a new visa application."
The waiver asymmetry, which is the point most often garbled
There is no IV waiver available under the law for an applicant who is ineligible under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(ii).
You may, at your discretion, recommend that DHS grant a waiver under INA 212(d)(3)(A) for an applicant ineligible under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)…
So the familiar statement that a false claim to citizenship can never be waived describes the immigrant side, where it is correct — there is no waiver in the law. On the nonimmigrant side a §212(d)(3)(A) waiver may be recommended, subject to the criteria in the manual's waiver chapter. See the 212(d)(3) waiver for how that mechanism works.
That distinction changes what someone should be asking about, which is why it is worth stating precisely rather than repeating the shorthand.
Frequently asked questions
Is a false claim to citizenship always permanent and unwaivable?
There is no immigrant-visa waiver under the law. For nonimmigrant visas, the manual expressly allows an officer to recommend a §212(d)(3)(A) waiver. The blanket version of the statement is wrong for one of the two routes.
Does it matter when the claim was made?
Yes. The ground applies only to claims made on or after 30 September 1996. Earlier claims are analysed under §212(a)(6)(C)(i) instead.
I was a child at the time. Does that help?
The manual recognises an affirmative defence of being under 18 and having lacked the maturity and judgment to understand the nature and consequences — both elements, proved clearly and beyond doubt by the applicant.
Someone else said it on my behalf. Am I liable?
Not automatically, but the manual says a third party's claim does not shield you if the officer finds you were aware of it at the time.
I did not realise the claim was false. Is that a defence?
The manual records that only a knowingly false claim supports the charge, and places the burden on the individual to establish they did not know — to the standard of clearly and beyond doubt.
I was refused on this ground years ago. Is that the end of it?
The manual contemplates a new application through standard procedures where someone believes their case meets the requirements above. What that is worth in a particular case is a question for a lawyer.