Iqbal v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs.
| Decision Date | 10 September 2019 |
| Docket Number | 1:17-CV-01066-EAW |
| Citation | 397 F.Supp.3d 273 |
| Parties | Ghazanfar IQBAL, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of New York |
John Paul Luhr, Bouvier Law LLP, Buffalo, NY, for Plaintiff.
Daniel Barrie Moar, U.S. Attorney's Office, Buffalo, NY, for Defendants.
DECISION AND ORDER
Ghazanfar Iqbal ("Plaintiff") commenced this action on October 23, 2017, challenging the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service's (the "USCIS") denial of his naturalization application under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq. (the "INA"), and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. (the "APA"). (Dkt. 1). Plaintiff claims that Defendants violated the INA and the APA by improperly concluding that he failed to maintain continuous residency in the United States for the statutorily required period and lacked the "good moral character" necessary for naturalization. (See Dkt. 1 at 12-13). Plaintiff requests that the Court order a plenary hearing, review his application for naturalization de novo , and grant him his request for naturalization. (Id. at 14).
Pending before the Court is Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 15) and motion to amend/correct the motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 16). Because the Court concludes that the undisputed facts establish that Plaintiff failed to maintain continuous residency in the United States from the date of his naturalization application up to the time of admission to citizenship, summary judgment is granted in favor of Defendant without the Court reaching the issue concerning the determination as to Plaintiff's good moral character.
Unless otherwise indicated, the following facts are taken from the parties' Rule 56 statements. (See Dkt. 15-17; Dkt. 20). Plaintiff, a citizen of Pakistan, arrived in this country in 1996 and is a lawful permanent resident of the United States. (Dkt. 15-17 at ¶¶ 1-3; Dkt. 20 at ¶¶ 1-3). According to Plaintiff, he has a wife and four children who are all citizens of the United States. (Dkt. 1 at ¶ 24 (Complaint); see Dkt. 15-16 at 9 ()). Plaintiff was self-employed at Kohinoor, a Halal meat store, from 2002 until 2005. (Dkt. 15-17 at ¶ 5; Dkt. 20 at ¶ 5).
On September 14, 2009, Plaintiff applied for naturalization and was interviewed by the USCIS on December 8, 2010. (Dkt. 15-17 at ¶ 10; Dkt. 20 at ¶ 10; see Dkt. 15-2 at ¶ 9 (Declaration of Adam Gallagher)). On March 1, 2011, Plaintiff's application was denied based on his failure to disclose past due taxes. (See Dkt. 1 at ¶ 26; Dkt. 18-1 at 5-6 (USCIS 2011 Notice of Decision)). The USCIS specifically relied upon the requirement in 8 U.S.C. § 1427(a) that an applicant "during all the periods referred to in this subsection has been and still is a person of good moral character," and the definition in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f) that "[n]o person shall be regarded as, or found to be, a person of good moral character who, during the period for which good moral character is required to be established, is, or was ... [o]ne who has given false testimony for the purpose of obtaining any benefits under this Act." (Dkt. 18-1 at 4-5).
On March 30, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Form N-366 Request for Hearing on a Decision of Naturalization to administratively challenge the USCIS's determination, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(a). (Dkt. 1 at ¶ 27; see Dkt. 18-3 (N-366 Request for a Hearing)). Plaintiff subsequently attended two interviews in relation to his § 1447(a) administrative appeal, on March 13, 2012, and April 9, 2015. (See Dkt. 15-17 at ¶ 11; Dkt. 20 at ¶ 11; see also Dkt. 15-2 at ¶ 9; Dkt. 15-5 at 1 ()).
Frustrated that after many years a decision had not been made with respect to his administrative appeal, Plaintiff filed a federal lawsuit pro se on July 21, 2015. Within a matter of weeks, the USCIS reached a decision denying Plaintiff's administrative appeal, but it delayed issuing its determination because of the pending litigation. Ultimately, on June 6, 2016, this Court granted the USCIS' motion to dismiss the pro se action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because, among other things, the USCIS had not yet issued its final decision. See Iqbal v. Sec'y U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec. , 190 F. Supp. 3d 322 (W.D.N.Y. 2016). On September 20, 2016, the USCIS issued a "Notice of Intent to Deny" Plaintiff's application for naturalization, and then officially denied the application on June 28, 2017. (Dkt. 15-17 at ¶¶ 12-13; Dkt. 20 at ¶¶ 12-13; see Dkt. 15-4; Dkt. 15-5).
The USCIS based its final decision upon two separate findings. First, the USCIS determined that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that he was "a person of good moral character" from the time he filed his application to the present because he "provided false testimony, under oath, with the intent to obtain an immigration benefit." (Dkt. 15-5 at 2). Second, the USCIS determined that Plaintiff had not demonstrated that he "continuously reside[d] within the United States" since the date he filed his application because he had spent a significant period of time making frequent and lengthy trips outside this country between July 9, 2014, and July 2, 2016, which cast doubt on whether the United States was Plaintiff's actual place of residence. (See id. at 3, 5).
Plaintiff's wife and their four children moved to Saudi Arabia in September 2016, and, apart from one of his children, Plaintiff's immediate family has not since returned to the United States. (Dkt. 15-17 at ¶¶ 14-15; Dkt. 20 at ¶¶ 14-15). Plaintiff also carries a "Saudi Arabian Iqama Resident Identity Card" (the "Iqama Card"). (Dkt. 15-17 at ¶ 4; Dkt. 20 at ¶ 4; see Dkt. 15-12 (Iqama Card)). According to Plaintiff, the Iqama Card permits him to remain in Saudi Arabia for extended periods (see Dkt. 15-16 at 32) and is both a "work permit" (id. at 22) and proof of Saudi Arabian residency (id. at 34). Plaintiff's wife and children planned to move to Malaysia in January 2019 and intend to remain there for at least the following four years while their children engage in educational endeavors. (Dkt. 15-17 at ¶ 16; Dkt. 20 at ¶ 16; see Dkt. 15-16 at 15-17). Beginning July 8, 2014, Plaintiff traveled outside the United States during the following timeframes:
Plaintiff commenced this action on October 23, 2017, alleging that Defendants violated the INA and the APA by wrongfully denying his naturalization application after concluding that he lacked "good moral character" and failed to maintain continuous residency in the United States as required by law. (Dkt. 1 at 12-13). Defendants answered the Complaint on December 29, 2017 (Dkt. 3), and the case proceeded to discovery (see Dkt. 9). Discovery concluded on November 7, 2018. (Dkt. 12).
On December 21, 2018, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment.1 (Dkt. 15). Defendants move for summary judgment on three grounds. First, Defendants argue that the USCIS' determination as to whether Plaintiff maintained continuous residency in the United States for the statutorily required period is completely discretionary and thus, is not subject to judicial review. (Dkt. 15-1 at 13-16). Second, and in the alternative, Defendants argue that even if the Court can review the USCIS' residency determination, Plaintiff failed to maintain continuous residency as a matter of law. (Id. at 16-20). Finally, Defendants argue that because Plaintiff provided multiple misrepresentations and false statements in an effort to obtain immigration benefits, Plaintiff lacks the "good moral character" required for naturalization. (Id. at 20-27). Although Plaintiff concedes every factual assertion contained in Defendants' Rule 56 statement (Dkt. 20), he argues that Defendants' factual statements do not entitle them to judgment as a matter of law on the issues of his continuous residency and "good moral character" (Dkt. 19).
The Court held oral argument in this matter on July 22, 2019, and reserved decision. (Dkt. 27).
Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that summary judgment should be granted if the moving party establishes "that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The Court should grant summary judgment if, after considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, the court finds that no rational jury could find in favor of that party. Scott v. Harris , 550 U.S. 372, 380, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007) (citing Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 586-87, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) ).
"The moving party bears the burden of showing the absence of a genuine dispute as to any material fact...." Crawford v. Franklin Credit Mgmt. Corp. , 758 F.3d 473, 486 (2d Cir. 2014). "Where the non-moving party will bear the burden of proof at trial, the party moving for summary judgment may meet its burden by showing the evidentiary materials of record, if reduced to admissible evidence, would be insufficient to carry the non-movant's burden of proof at trial." Johnson v. Xerox Corp. , 838 F. Supp. 2d 99, 103 (W.D.N.Y. 2011) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) ). Once the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Saleh v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Servs.
...all statutory requirements, and “the burden is on the alien applicant to show his eligibility for citizenship in every respect.” Iqbal, 397 F.Supp.3d at 278 I.N.S. v. Pangilinan, 486 U.S. 875, 886 (1988)). Further, an alien's failure to affirmatively demonstrate he has met all statutory req......