United States v. Gonzales
| Decision Date | 12 April 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 4:15-CV-275 CAS,4:15-CV-275 CAS |
| Citation | 179 F.Supp.3d 917 |
| Parties | United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Jose Ines Rubalcava Gonzales, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
Sarah Lake Vuong, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.
Martha Charepoo, Law Offices of Martha Charepoo, St. Louis, MO, for Defendant.
This is an action by the United States of America (“United States”) under Section 340(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a), to revoke and set aside defendant Jose Ines Rubalcava Gonzales' (“Mr. Rubalcava”) United States citizenship and cancel his certificate of naturalization. The matter is before the Court on the United States' motion for summary judgment. Defendant opposes the motion and it is fully briefed and ready for decision. For the following reasons, the motion will be granted.
Mr. Rubalcava was born in Mexico and moved to the United States in 1984 at approximately the age of nineteen. He became a lawful permanent resident of the United States in 1990. Mr. Rubalcava committed an act of child molestation in Missouri in April 2006, and in July 2007 applied for naturalization as a U.S. citizen. Mr. Rubalcava had a citizenship interview in February 2008 and became a naturalized U.S. citizen in June 2008. In November 2009, the State of Missouri criminally charged Mr. Rubalcava with multiple counts of sodomy and child molestation, and subsequently amended the charges. In July 2011, Mr. Rubalcava pleaded guilty to one count of class B felony child molestation in the first degree and was sentenced to ten years in prison. Mr. Rubalcava served his prison term and was released.
The United States filed this action in 2015 seeking to set aside the order admitting Mr. Rubalcava to U.S. citizenship and cancel his Certificate of Naturalization on the grounds that he (1) illegally procured his U.S. citizenship because at the time of naturalization, he lacked good moral character, and (2) concealed and misrepresented a material fact in his naturalization application.
The Eighth Circuit has articulated the appropriate standard for consideration of motions for summary judgment as follows:
Summary judgment is proper if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The movant bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and must identify those portions of the record which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. If the movant does so, the nonmovant must respond by submitting evidentiary materials that set out specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. On a motion for summary judgment, facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party only if there is a genuine dispute as to those facts. Credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge. The nonmovant must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts, and must come forward with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue for trial.
Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031, 1043 (8th Cir.2011) (en banc) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). With this standard in mind, the Court finds the following facts for purposes of summary judgment.
1. Plaintiff, Jose Ines Rubalcava Gonzales (“Mr. Rubalcava”), was born in 1965, in San Jose de Los Reynoso, Jalisco, Mexico. Ex. J, Deposition Transcript of Mr. Jose Ines Rubalcava Gonzales, at 7-8.
2. Mr. Rubalcava moved to the United States in or about 1984. Ex. J, 8. He became a lawful permanent resident of the United States on December 1, 1990. Ex. H, Form N-400, Application for Naturalization, at 2.
3. In April 2006, Mr. Rubalcava committed an act of child molestation, specifically sexual contact with his stepdaughter, a nine-year-old child (hereinafter referred to as “C.L.”). Ex. B, Judgment; Ex. G, Transcript of Plea Colloquy, at 8-9.
4. On November 20, 2009, the State of Missouri (“the State”) filed an information charging Mr. Rubalcava with multiple counts of sodomy and child molestation. Ex. D, Information.
5. Mr. Rubalcava was arraigned on December 4, 2009, and entered a plea of not guilty to all of the charges. Ex. A, Docket Sheet, at 2.
6. The State filed a Second Amended Information on July 22, 2011, alleging two counts of child molestation and one count of attempted sodomy. Ex. C, Second Amended Information. Count I alleged that Mr. Rubalcava violated Mo. Rev. Stat. § 566.067 by committing a class B felony of child molestation in the first degree, in that on or about April 2006 in the County of Jasper, State of Missouri, the defendant subjected C-L-who was then less than fourteen years old to sexual contact. See id.
7. On July 22, 2011, Mr. Rubalcava pleaded guilty to Count I, Child Molestation in the First Degree, in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 566.067, in that on or about April 2006 he subjected C-L-who was then less than fourteen years old to sexual contact. Ex. A, Docket Sheet, at 11; Ex. E, Petition to Enter Plea of Guilty; 2 Ex. F, Memorandum of Plea Bargain; Ex. G, Transcript of Plea Colloquy.
8. At his plea hearing, Mr. Rubalcava stated that he signed both the Petition to Enter Plea of Guilty and the Memorandum of Plea Bargain only after his attorney explained the documents to him and after an interpreter sight translated the documents from English into Spanish. Ex. G, at 6-7.
9. The State described the evidence that it would proffer if the case were to go to trial, including testimony from the victim that on or about April 2006 in Jasper County, Missouri, Mr. Rubalcava took the victim's hand and placed it upon his penis. At the time, the victim was less than 14 years old, and this occurred “just prior to her nine year old birthday.” Mr. Rubalcava admitted at his guilty plea proceeding that this information was substantially correct. Ex. G, at 8-9.
10. On July 22, 2011, the Circuit County Court for Jasper County, Missouri, held a plea hearing, found factual basis for the plea, accepted the plea of guilty of the charge of a Class B Felony, Child Molestation, and found Mr. Rubalcava guilty. Ex. A, at 11.
11. On November 18, 2011, the court again accepted the plea agreement and found Mr. Rubalcava guilty of violating Mo. Rev. Stat. § 566.067, First Degree Child Molestation. The court sentenced Mr. Rubalcava to ten years in prison. Ex. A, at 12; Ex. B.
12. Mr. Rubalcava testified in his deposition in this case that he showed C.L. his penis and got her to touch it. Ex. J, at 36:20-25. He testified, however, that this occurred in January 2008, not in April 2006. Id., at 27:25-28:5; 29:7-30:8.
13. On July 26, 2007, Mr. Rubalcava filed a Form N-400, Application for Naturalization with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), a subagency within the Department of Homeland Security. Ex. H.
14. Mr. Rubalcava's N-400 was filled out for him by Armando Salgado of Armando Salgado Tax Service and Notary Public, based on information provided by Mr. Rubalcava. Ex. H, at 10.
15. Part 10, Question 15 asked if Mr. Rubalcava had “ever committed a crime or offense for which [he was] not arrested.” Mr. Rubalcava answered “No” to this question. Ex. H, at 8.
16. On February 27, 2008, USCIS Officer Angela Raabe (n/k/a Angela Firuccia) interviewed Mr. Rubalcava regarding his naturalization application to determine his eligibility for naturalization. At the beginning of the interview, Officer Raabe placed Mr. Rubalcava under oath. Ex. H, at 10.
17. At his naturalization interview, Mr. Rubalcava failed to disclose a crime for which he was later convicted: that he had sexually molested C. L., his nine-year-old stepdaughter, in April 2006. Ex. H, at 10.
18. At no point during the naturalization process did Mr. Rubalcava disclose his criminal act of child molestation. See generally, Ex. H.
19. Officer Raabe did not remember Mr. Rubalcava's interview, but testified she would have circled in red ink the questions on Mr. Rubalcava's Form N-400 that she asked him about during the interview on February 27, 2008.
20. Question 15, which asked whether Mr. Rubalcava had “ever committed a crime or offense for which [he was] not arrested,” was not circled in red ink. Ex. H, at 8. Based on the fact that the question was not circled in red ink, Officer Raabe testified she did not ask Mr. Rubalcava about Question 15 at the interview. Def.'s Ex. 3, Firuccia Dep., 88:25-89:15.
21. At the naturalization interview, Mr. Rubalcava swore and certified under penalty of perjury that the contacts of his application for naturalization, including four corrections noted thereon by Officer Raabe, were true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief. Ex. H, at 10.
22. At the time of his naturalization interview, Mr. Rubalcava could speak, read, and write in English. Ex. J, at 32-33.
23. Based on Mr. Rubalcava's testimony at his individual naturalization interview, Officer Raabe recommended that the court grant Mr. Rubalcava's petition for naturalization. Ex. H, at 1.
24. Officer Raabe testified that child molestation would not meet the standard of good moral character. Ex. K at 97:18-98:4.
25. On June 9, 2008, Mr. Rubalcava took the oath of allegiance to the United States, and the Department of Homeland Security admitted him to United States citizenship, issuing Mr. Rubalcava a Certificate of Naturalization No. 29390863. Ex. I, Certificate of Naturalization for Jose Ines Rubalcava Gonzales.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Hamed
...naturalization" because he or she does not meet the congressionally imposed requirements for citizenship. United States v. Rubalcava Gonzales, 179 F.Supp.3d 917, 922 (E.D. Mo. 2016) (citing Fedorenko, 449 U.S. at 506, 101 S.Ct. 737 ). One of these requirements is "good moral character" duri......
-
Blair v. City of Hannibal
... ... City of Hannibal, et al., Defendants. Case No. 2:15CV00061 ERW United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Northern Division. Signed April 13, 2016 179 F.Supp.3d 905 ... ...
-
United States v. Rahman
... ... This ... evidence supports the conclusion that Rahman was in removal ... proceedings and that, therefore, USCIS lacked jurisdiction to ... adjudicate his application for adjustment of status ... See Dar-Salameh v. Gonzales , 468 F.3d 47, ... 51 (1st Cir. 2006) (concluding that USCIS lacked jurisdiction ... to adjust the status of a defendant who was subject to a ... decade-old order of deportation because “attempts to ... adjust his status occurred after he was placed in deportation ... ...
-
United States v. Agyemang
...turpitude during the statutory period, for which he is later convicted, is barred from naturalization." United States v. Rubalcava Gonzales, 179 F. Supp. 3d 917, 923 (E.D. Mo. 2016); see United States v. Suarez, 664 F.3d 655, 659-61 (7th Cir. 2011) ("[I]f the offense was committed during th......