Saleh v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, CIVIL ACTION NO: 12-425
| Decision Date | 25 March 2013 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO: 12-425 |
| Parties | MOHAMED MANA SALEH v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ET AL. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") denied Plaintiff Mohamed Mana Saleh's application for naturalization (the "Instant Application") on May 23, 2012. Plaintiff petitioned this Court for review pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c). The matter was tried before the undersigned on March 11 and 12, 2013. Having considered the evidence admitted at trial, the arguments of counsel, and the briefing submitted by the parties, the Court issues the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52.
From a preponderance of the evidence, the Court finds as follows:
Summary of Background:
1. Plaintiff is a 39-year-old national and citizen of Yemen.
2. Plaintiff was accorded lawful permanent residence status in the United States in 1989.
3. On January 9, 1998, Plaintiff filed an Application for Naturalization, INS Form N-400, with the former Immigration and Naturalization Service ("INS").
4. On July 19, 1999, the former INS denied the application.
5. On August 9, 2002, Plaintiff filed a second Application for Naturalization, INS Form N-400, with the former INS.
6. USCIS denied the application on February 8, 2011.1
7. On February 12, 2010, Plaintiff filed the Instant Application.
8. On February 8, 2011, USCIS issued a written decision denying the Instant Application. The decision was originally dated January 11, 2011.
9. Plaintiff administratively appealed the denial of his naturalization application by filing a Form N-336, Request for a Hearing on a Decision in Naturalization Proceedings, dated July8, 2011.
10. On March 27, 2012, Plaintiff appeared for a sworn N-336 hearing before USCIS Officer Sandra Peacock.
11. On May 23, 2012, USCIS affirmed in writing its denial of the Instant Appication.
12. On February 14, 2012, Plaintiff filed this claim for injunctive and mandamus relief.
Plaintiff's Admission into the United States:
13. On June 8, 1988, Mohamed Mana Saleh filed a form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative, on behalf of Plaintiff, his son. This form lists Plaintiff's date of birth as "3/10/73."
14. The former INS approved Mr. Saleh's form I-130 on November 1, 1988.
15. On April 29, 1989, Plaintiff filed an INS Form 230, Application for Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration. His date of birth was inadvertently listed as "4/10/73."
16. On September 11, 1989, Plaintiff's immigration status was adjusted by INS to that of a lawful permanent resident. INS stamped Plaintiff's form DS 1-551 with a form I-551 stamp and an immigration admission stamp.
17. On September 11, 1989, Plaintiff was issued a form I-551 Permanent Resident Card. Plaintiff was issued the Alien Number A040-060-153.
18. On April 19, 2010, Plaintiff filed the Instant Application.
19. On September 13, 2010, Officer Randy Stebbins, a naturalization examiner with USCIS, interviewed Plaintiff under oath regarding this application.
20. Officer Stebbins asked Plaintiff whether he had knowingly committed any crime for which he had not been arrested; whether he had ever been arrested, cited, or detained by any law enforcement officer (including INS and military officers) for any reason; and whether Plaintiff had ever given false or misleading information to a United States government official while applying for any immigration benefit.
21. Plaintiff orally affirmed that all information on the Instant Application was true and correct.
22. During this same interview, Plaintiff executed two written, sworn statements. On the first sworn statement, Plaintiff stated that he had never "been arrested, detained or questioned by any police, military, or intelligence agencies."
23. On the second sworn statement, Plaintiff stated that he "first became aware of [his] duty to register with the United States Selective Service System," at the instant naturalization interview.
24. During his sworn N-336 hearing before USCIS Officer Peacock, Plaintiff confirmed that he understood the word "detained" to mean "stopped and questioned." When questioned regarding his failure to report his detention at the airport in Jordan on the Instant Application, Plaintiff admitted that he was, in fact, detained at John F. KennedyInternational Airport ("JFK").2 Plaintiff testified that he did not disclose the detention and seizure because he was not arrested.
25. Plaintiff further testified during this hearing that he did not know what the Selective Service was when he received materials regarding the naturalization process, and that he was unaware of his obligation to register.
26. On August 24, 1995, Plaintiff was detained at JFK as he attempted to board a Royal Jordanian flight bound for Amman, Jordan. His final destination was Yemen.
27. Plaintiff was stopped in the jet way by Special Agent William Wilson ("SA Wilson"), a Customs Inspector who formed part of the Contraband Enforcement Team (CET).
28. SA Wilson advised Plaintiff of the currency reporting requirements of 31 U.S.C. § 5311, et seq. Plaintiff was informed that he was required to file a report with the United States Government if he was transporting monetary instruments to a foreign country totaling in excess of $10,000.00.
29. SA Wilson provided Plaintiff with a form CB 503, which explained the currency reporting requirements.
30. Plaintiff subsequently executed a written statement that he was transporting $2,900.
31. SA Wilson searched Plaintiff and his carry-on luggage and discovered $19,952 in U.S. currency and $29,000 in negotiable bonds.
32. Plaintiff was detained and transported by van to the CET office for further processing. The CET office was located on the opposite end of the airport.
33. The monetary instruments were confiscated at the CET office.
34. The United States Attorney was contacted and declined to prosecute. Plaintiff was released and allowed to keep $472 to continue his trip.
35. Plaintiff subsequently filed suit against the United States and the confiscated funds were returned.
36. Plaintiff stated in Part G of the Instant Application entitled "Selective Service Registration" that he has not "lived in the United States at any time between his 18th and 26th birthdays in any status except lawful nonimmigrant." Part G instructs that all men who have lived in the United States between the ages of 18 and 26 must register with the Selective Service System before applying for naturalization.
37. At trial, Plaintiff conceded that he lived in the United States between his 18th and 26th birthdays yet failed to register for the Selective Service.
38. Plaintiff was informed of his obligation to register for Selective Service during his naturalization interview in May, 1999.
39. On August 3, 2005, officials with the New York State Department of Taxation and the New York State Police observed several compact Discs and DVD recordings for sale at Anis Super Deli.
40. After confirming the discs were counterfeited, officers entered the store and confronted Plaintiff.
41. Plaintiff informed the officers that he owned Anis Super Deli and that he was responsible for the sale of the counterfeit items.
42. Plaintiff was subsequently arrested in Rochester, New York on charges of Trademark counterfeiting in the Second Degree (a felony), and Failure to Disclose the Origin of a Recording in the Second Degree (a misdemeanor).
43. On October 31, 2005, Plaintiff pleaded guilty to a single count of Failure to Disclose the Origin of a Recording. He was fined $1,200 and received no jail time. As a result of this guilty plea, the other charges were dismissed.
1. The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c). Venue is proper as a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this matter occurred in the Eastern District of Louisiana. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1).
2. An applicant whose application for naturalization has been denied can seek judicial review in a federal district court under 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c). Section 1421(c) provides that such review shall be de novo and that the court shall make its own findings of fact and conclusions of law. 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c). See further Aparicio v. Blakeway, 302 F.3d 437, 445 (5th Cir. 2002) ().
3. Strict compliance with all prerequisites for the acquisition of citizenship is required. Fedorenko v. United States, 449 U.S. 490, 522 (1981). A naturalization applicant bears the burden of establishing eligibility. Berenyi v. Dist. Dir., I.N.S., 385 U.S. 630, 637 (1967). Thus, all doubts are resolved "in favor of the United States and against the claimant." Berenyi, 385 U.S. at 637 (internal quotations and citations omitted).
4. The applicant must carry his burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. See 8 C.F.R. § 316.2(b) (). Despite the clear wording of this regulation, the Government argues in vain that Plaintiff mustestablish good moral character—a statutory prerequisite for naturalization—by clear and convincing evidence. The out-of-Circuit authorities cited by the Government in support of this proposition rely on Berenyi. In Berenyi,the Supreme Court unequivocally held that the Government must prove its case by clear and convincing evidence "when it seeks to strip a person of citizenship already acquired." Berenyi, 385 U.S. at 636. Significantly, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial