United States v. Jie Zhong
| Decision Date | 29 August 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. C 11-5112 MEJ,C 11-5112 MEJ |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JIE ZHONG, Defendant. |
Plaintiff United States of American brings this action pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a), seeking to revoke and set aside the order admitting Defendant Jie Zhong to citizenship and to cancel his Certificate of Naturalization.1 Compl. ¶ 1, Dkt. No. 1. After the Court denied the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, finding that triable issues of fact existed on each of the Government's four claims, the Court set this matter for trial. Dkt. No. 36. On March 13, 2013, the Court held a bench trial. Following trial, the Court took the matter under submission and granted the parties leave to submit closing briefs and revised proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Dkt. Nos. 72 (Def. Br.), 74 (Gov. Br.). Having carefully considered the testimony at trial, the administrative record, the parties' written arguments, and the controlling legal authorities, the Court now issues the following findings of fact and conclusions of law and GRANTS the Government's request for denaturalization of Zhong. Zhong's certificate of citizenship is hereby CANCELED and the order admitting him to citizenship is REVOKED and SET ASIDE.
On October 19, 2011, the Government filed a Complaint to Revoke Naturalization pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a), seeking to denaturalize Zhong. As required, the Government filed as an exhibit to the Complaint the Affidavit of James Burke, a Senior Special Agent for the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"), United States Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), showing good cause for this action. Compl. ¶ 2, Dkt. No. 9 (Burke Affidavit). The Complaint asserts four claims against Zhong seeking denaturalization pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a).
In Count One, the Government alleges that because Zhong admitted that he was never affiliated with Falun Gong, was never persecuted in China, and never feared persecution based on such affiliation in China, Zhong did not meet the definition of a "refugee" under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42), and therefore obtained his asylum status, and thereby his Lawful Permanent Resident ("LPR") status, fraudulently. Compl. ¶¶ 32-40. The Government therefore asserts that Zhong illegally procured his naturalization, making revocation pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a) appropriate.
In Count Two, the Government charges that because Zhong procured his asylum status by fraud and willful misrepresentation of material facts, he was inadmissible to the United States and was not lawfully admitted to the United States as a LPR, disqualifying him for naturalization. Id. ¶¶ 41-46. It therefore asserts that because Zhong was ineligible for naturalization, Zhong illegally procured his naturalization and it must be revoked pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a). Id. ¶ 47. The Government further charges that because Zhong entered into a fraudulent marriage with his second wife, Nicole Williams, in an attempt to expedite his LPR status, he sought to procure a visa by fraud and was thus inadmissible to the United States, making him ineligible for naturalization and making revocation of his naturalization appropriate pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a). Id. ¶¶ 48-51.
In Count Three, the Government alleges that because Zhong provided false testimony about his membership in Falun Gong and denying that he had ever given false or misleading information to any United States government official while applying for an immigration benefit, Zhong was precluded from establishing good moral character under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(6) and was ineligible for naturalization for lack of good moral character under 8 U.S.C. § 1427(a)(3). Id. ¶¶ 52-61. It allegesthat as a person ineligible to naturalize, Zhong illegally procured his naturalization and it must be revoked pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a). Id. ¶ 62.
In Count Four, the Government alleges that Zhong willfully misrepresented and concealed material facts on his naturalization application when he claimed that he had never provided false or misleading information to any United States government official while applying for any immigration benefit. Id. ¶ 64. It further alleges that he provided false and misleading information at his naturalization interview when he orally testified that he had been a member of Falun Gong. Id. ¶ 67. It alleges that by misrepresenting material facts, Zhong was able to procure his naturalization and it must therefore be revoked, as provided for by 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a). Id. ¶¶ 68-69.
On October 25, 2012, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Dkt. Nos. 22 (Gov. MSJ), 30 (Def. MSJ). In its Motion, the Government argued that Zhong is subject to denaturalization on three grounds. First, it asserted that at the time Zhong was naturalized, he was not lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence because he obtained asylee status based on a fraudulent claim that he practiced Falun Gong and because he previously tried to procure a visa predicated on a fraudulent marriage to his second wife, both of which rendered him inadmissible for naturalization. Dkt. No. 22 at 1. Second, the Government argued that Zhong illegally procured his naturalization because he did not satisfy the good moral character requirement after he provided false testimony under oath when he testified about his asylum application. Id. at 1-2. Third, the Government asserted that Zhong procured his naturalization by concealing and willfully misrepresenting material facts about his asylum fraud to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") throughout his naturalization process. Id. at 2. The Government thus urged the Court to revoke Zhong's naturalization under 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a).
Zhong, however, maintained that USCIS properly granted him asylum based on his involvement with Falun Gong, that his second marriage was valid, and that he did not conceal or provide misleading information and thus did not illegally procure naturalization. Dkt. No. 30.
On November 29, 2012, the Court held a hearing on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. It issued an order denying the motions on December 12, 2012. Dkt. No. 36. The Courtfirst found that triable issues of fact existed with respect to the legitimacy of Zhong's marriage to Williams, and thus the issue of whether Zhong sought to procure an immigration benefit by marriage fraud. Id. at 17. With respect to the Government's claim that Zhong was never a refugee within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42), making him ineligible to obtain lawful permanent resident status pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1159(b)(3), and thus was not a lawfully admitted permanent resident when he applied to become a citizen, the Court found that triable issues of fact existed about whether Zhong qualified to be a refugee. Id. at 17-18. As to the Government's claim that Zhong illegally procured his naturalization because he lacked the good moral character required to naturalize required by 8 U.S.C. § 1427(a)(3) based on alleged false testimony, the Court found that issues of credibility precluded the Court from making any determination as to the veracity of statements Zhong made under oath which would reflect on his moral character. Id. at 19-20. Finally, as to the Government's charge that Zhong willfully misrepresented and concealed material facts on his naturalization application, the Court found that the issue could not be resolved based on the parties' written submissions because it raised credibility determinations. Id. at 20-21.
The Court held a bench trial on March 13, 2013. During trial, the Court heard live testimony from Zhong, Williams, USCIS Officer Corynne Condon, and Agent Burke.
The Court now makes the following factual findings and legal determinations.
1. Zhong is a native of the People's Republic of China. Joint Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law ("JF&C") ¶ 1, Dkt. No. 60; Trial Exhibit ("Ex.") 1 (5/9/2000) (Application for Asylum) at DOJ-000177.2
2. On February 10, 1999, he entered the United States at Chicago, Illinois on a visitor's visa. JF&C ¶ 1; Ex. 1 at DOJ-000177 March 13, 2013 Trial Transcript ("Tr.") at 6:19-23.
3. The following year, on May 9, 2000, Zhong applied for asylum with the former Immigration and Naturalization Service in San Francisco, now USCIS. JF&C ¶ 2; Ex. 1 at DOJ-000177.4. Page 8, Part F of the Asylum Application contains a section titled "Signature of Person Preparing Form if Other Than Above." JF&C ¶ 2; Ex. 1 at DOJ-000184. Part F contains the signature and information of a person named "Steve Mao" as the preparer. Id.
5. In his Declaration in Support of Asylum Application, Zhong indicated that he was "applying for asylum because Falun Gong (FLG) has been labeled as an 'illegal evil cult' by the Chinese government and ruthlessly persecuted in P.R. China since last year." Ex. 1 at DOJ-000185.
6. Zhong claimed that he began practicing Falun Gong with his father in 1997. JF&C ¶ 3. Zhong also claimed that while living in China, he and his father attended weekly Falun Gong meetings, practiced Falun Gong exercises, and shared his experiences. Id. ¶ 4.
7. Zhong further represented that, in August 1998 he gave a speech to fellow Falun Gong practitioners about his experiences as a Falun Gong member, and that after he left China, his father was arrested and detained for one week for participating in a Falun Gong sitting protest. Id. ¶ 5.
8. In his Declaration, under a heading titled, "Why I Fear to Return to China Now," Zhong stated:
If I return to China, the Chinese Government will arrest me immediately because I had given a speech to introduce my experience in our country in 1998. After I came to the U.S. I wrote two letters to my father...
To continue reading
Request your trial