Immigration Blog
October 1, 2025
Understanding the Impact of Matter of Pascacio Gonzalez Jimenez: Immigration Law, Discretion, and Notario Fraud
On July 12, 2025, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) issued a significant precedential decision in Matter of Pascacio Gonzalez Jimenez, addressing two critical aspects of immigration law: (1) the impact of false information on Social Security and taxes when requesting relief, and (2) the potential for excusing late filings based on reliance on professional advice even if that advice comes from a non-attorney. This decision reflects a growing recognition of the complex, real-world challenges many immigrants face when navigating the legal system.
Background of the Case
Mr. Pascacio Gonzalez Jimenez applied for asylum defensively in removal proceedings but was denied based on missing the one-year filing deadline. He argued that he had relied on advice from a non-attorney, who told him he was not eligible to apply for asylum. This led him to delay filing until he was already in deportation proceedings.
In addition to the late asylum filing, Gonzalez Jimenez had also used a false Social Security number to work and submitted tax returns using that number. The immigration judge considered this as a negative factor when weighing whether to grant relief.
Key Findings from the BIA
1. Fraudulent Use of Social Security Numbers and Tax Misrepresentations Weigh Against Relief
The BIA reaffirmed that the use of a false or stolen Social Security number and providing false information on tax returns are serious negative discretionary factors. Even if someone meets the eligibility requirements for relief (such as cancellation of removal or asylum), these types of misrepresentations can be used to deny relief as a matter of discretion.
This reinforces the message that honesty in dealings with federal agencies is crucial. Misuse of identity information and tax fraud are not taken lightly, and will weigh heavily against granting any immigration benefits.
2. Reasonable Reliance on Professional Advice Can Excuse Late Filings
In a more humanitarian turn, the BIA held that a respondent may be excused from missing deadlines such as the one-year asylum filing deadline if they reasonably relied on incorrect legal advice, even if that advice came from a non-attorney like a notario or immigration consultant.
This is a major shift. Previously, ineffective assistance claims were largely limited to licensed attorneys or DOJ-accredited representatives. But many immigrants, especially those with limited resources or English proficiency, often rely on unlicensed advisors in their communities.
Importantly, the BIA emphasized that to excuse conduct based on this kind of reliance, the respondent must submit evidence of the specific advice they were given and explain why it was reasonable to rely on it. It’s not enough to simply claim bad advice; there must be documentation or testimony showing what was said, and why the respondent believed the source was trustworthy and knowledgeable.
Together, these findings make clear that while the BIA is willing to consider genuine cases of reliance on incorrect advice, serious misconduct such as using a false Social Security number can outweigh other positive factors. In Gonzalez Jimenez’s case, the Board dismissed the appeal and upheld the immigration judge’s denial of relief.
What This Means for Immigrants and Advocates
The Gonzalez Jimenez decision highlights the balance immigration courts try to strike between fairness and accountability:
- Accountability: Using false Social Security numbers or misleading the IRS through fraudulent tax returns will almost certainly hurt your case. These actions go to the heart of a person’s credibility and willingness to comply with U.S. laws.
- Fairness: At the same time, the decision acknowledges that many immigrants are vulnerable to misinformation and scams. If someone was genuinely misled by someone they reasonably believed was competent such as a notario or community consultant the court may take that into account.
This opens a door for many immigrants who missed deadlines through no fault of their own. But it also places the burden on them to prove the advice they received and justify their trust in that advisor.
Moving Forward: Caution and Preparation
- Documentation is key. Anyone who claims they were misled by professional advice must present evidence of the advice such as letters, texts, or testimony and explain why it seemed credible at the time.
- Beware of notarios. While the decision offers a path to correct mistakes caused by bad advice, it does not endorse working with unlicensed advisors. The safest route is always to consult a licensed attorney or DOJ-accredited representative.
- Discretion remains powerful. Even if you qualify for relief, immigration judges will still weigh your past conduct including tax and identity fraud. A clean record and truthful behavior can make the difference.
Matter of Pascacio Gonzalez Jimenez sends a clear message: serious misconduct, such as identity fraud and false tax filings, can derail even the strongest immigration cases. But it also shows that the immigration courts are willing to look at context especially when someone has been misled by someone they believed was qualified to help them.
This decision reinforces the importance of seeking reliable legal advice, documenting everything, and being honest in all dealings with government agencies. For immigrants and advocates alike, it’s a critical reminder that the law is not just about rules but also about reason, fairness, and the pursuit of justice.
With over two decades of experience, Attorney Diana Bailey and her team provide compassionate, strategic guidance tailored to your unique situation. Call us today at (503) 224-0950 to speak with a legal professional who can help you protect your immigration future.