Asrat v. Barr
Citation | 399 F.Supp.3d 505 |
Decision Date | 13 August 2019 |
Docket Number | Case No. 1:18-cv-1453 |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
Parties | Tamrat ASRAT, Plaintiff, v. William BARR, Attorney General of the United States, et al., Defendants. |
Steffanie Jones Lewis, The International Business Law Firm PC, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.
Dennis Carl Barghaan, Jr., Elizabeth Anne Spavins, United States Attorney's Office, Alexandria, VA, for Defendants.
Plaintiff, a national and citizen of Ethiopia, brings this action pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c), challenging the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service's ("USCIS") denial of his naturalization application. Specifically, plaintiff contends the denial was improper because USCIS erroneously concluded that plaintiff was never lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States. In response, defendants argue that USCIS was correct to conclude that plaintiff was never lawfully admitted for permanent residence and that plaintiff's application fails for the additional reason that plaintiff cannot establish that he is a person of good moral character.
At issue in this matter are the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. The motions have been fully briefed and argued and are thus ripe for disposition. For the reasons that follow, defendants' motion for summary judgment must be granted and plaintiff's motion for summary judgment must be denied.
Summary judgment is appropriate only where there are no genuine disputes of material fact. Rule 56, Fed. R. Civ. P. Accordingly, the material record facts as to which no genuine dispute exists must first be identified. The following undisputed material facts are derived from the parties' respective lists of undisputed material facts.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Grey v. Jaddou
...was made for the purpose of obtaining immigration benefit, and (iv) was made within the five-year statutory window.” Astrat v. Barr, 399 F.Supp.3d 505, 520 (E.D. Va. 2019). The regulations promulgated under the rule further explain that the disqualifying testimony need not be material to th......
-
Yun v. Zanotti, Civil Action 1:20-cv-1062 (RDA/TCB)
...... in this Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). case. Dkt. 12. The Court dispenses with oral argument as it. would not ... fact on summary judgment. See Asrat v. Barr , 399. F.Supp.3d 505, 520 n.11 (E.D. Va. 2019), aff'd, ......