United States v. Merino
| Decision Date | 26 July 2021 |
| Docket Number | 20-cv-24093-KMM/LOUIS |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. PAVEL LUIS HERNANDEZ MERINO, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Plaintiff's (the “Government”) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 10). This matter has been referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and the Magistrate Judge Rules of the Local Rules of the Southern District of Florida, by the Honorable K. Michael Moore, United States District Court Judge, to take all necessary and proper action as required by law and for a Report and Recommendation on any dispositive matters (ECF No. 5). No Response was filed and the time to do so has long since passed. Having considered the Motion, the pleadings, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises for the reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends that the Government's Motion be GRANTED.
Defendant Pavel Luis Hernandez Merino (“Merino”) was born in Cuba in 1982 (ECF No. 1-10 at 3). Prior to his naturalization, he was a citizen of Cuba (id.). Merino became a lawful permanent resident of the Unites States in May 2006 and applied for naturalization in November 2016 (id. at 1-2). On his naturalization application, Defendant answered “No” to Question 22 of Part 12, which asked: “Have you EVER committed, assisted in committing, or attempted to commit, a crime or offense for which you were NOT arrested?” (id. at 15 (emphasis in original)). Defendant signed the naturalization application certifying under penalty of perjury that he provided or authorized all of the information in his application and that the contents of the application were complete, true, and correct (id. at 18). During his naturalization interview in March 2018, Defendant confirmed the answer to Question 22, Part 12, of his naturalization application stating that he had never committed a crime or offense for which he was not arrested (ECF No. 1 at ¶ 23). At the conclusion of the interview, Defendant again signed the naturalization application certifying under penalty of perjury that the contents of the application were complete, true, and correct (ECF No. 1-10 at 20). In April 2018, Defendant was admitted as a citizen of the United States and was issued Certificate of Naturalization (ECF No. 1-11).
The following month, May 2018, Defendant was charged by Criminal Indictment in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida with one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349, and nineteen counts of health care fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1347 (ECF No. 1-4). The indictment charged Defendant with committing the crimes from in or around July 2014 through in or around July 2017 (id. at 5, 7). In September 2018, Defendant entered into a plea agreement and pleaded guilty to the conspiracy count, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (ECF No. 1-5). As part of this plea agreement, Defendant also executed a Factual Basis in Support of Plea (“Factual Proffer”) (ECF No. 1-6). Within the Factual Proffer, Merino attested to being the true owner of Americare, a company which he owned and operated to further health care fraud (id.). Specifically, Defendant, along with co-conspirators, submitted or caused Americare to submit via interstate wires false and fraudulent claims totaling approximately $8, 550, 040.00 to insurance plans, which resulted in reimbursement payments to Americare totaling $3, 694, 969.00. Defendant was sentenced to 57 months imprisonment (ECF No. 1-9 at 19).
In October 2020, the Government filed the instant action seeking to revoke his naturalized United States citizenship under 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a) based on his participation in criminal activity that he concealed throughout the naturalization process and that disqualified him from United States citizenship (ECF No. 1). Defendant was properly served while incarcerated at the Federal Detention Center, but never answered the Complaint. In January 2021, the Government filed this instant Motion seeking judgment on the pleadings (ECF No. 10). Defendant, who unbeknownst to the Government had been transferred from the Federal Detention Center to a Residential Reentry Center, did not receive a copy of the instant Motion until May 6, 2021 (ECF No. 11). Defendant had not filed a response to the Motion, and the time to do so has since passed.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), “[a]fter the pleadings are closed - but early enough not to delay trial - a party may move for judgment on the pleadings.” Id. “Judgment on the pleadings is proper when no issues of material fact exist, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law based on the substance of the pleadings and any judicially noticed facts.” Interline Brands, Inc. v. Chartis Specialty Ins. Co., 749 F.3d 962, 965 (11th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). In ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, “[a]ll facts alleged in the complaint must be accepted as true and viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Scott v. Taylor, 405 F.3d 1251, 1253 (11th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).
Congress has authorized the United States to seek denaturalization in any case where a naturalized citizen either: (1) illegally procured naturalization; or (2) procured naturalization by concealment of material facts or by willful misrepresentation. 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a). “An individual has ‘illegally procured' naturalization if he was statutorily ineligible to naturalize at the time he became a naturalized citizen.” United States v. Garcia, No. 14-CV-22397-KMM, 2015 WL 12533126, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 18, 2015); see also Fedorenko v. United States, 449 U.S. 490, 506 (1981). Under the latter ground set forth in section 1451(a), an individual is subject to denaturalization if he procured naturalization by either concealment or misrepresentation, if the concealment or misrepresentation was willful, and if the fact at issue was material. See id.; Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759, 767 (1988) (citing Fedorenko, 449 U.S. at 507, n.28).
To prevail in a denaturalization action, the Government must always prove its case, even when the defendant defaults. Garcia, 2015 WL 12533126, at *3; Klapprott v. United States, 335 U.S. 601, 612-13 (1949). The Government's standard of proof in a denaturalization case is heightened because the goal of such litigation is to deprive an individual of the “priceless benefits that derive from” United States citizenship. Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118, 122 (1943). In such instances, the Government must prove its case “by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence which does not leave the issue in doubt.” Klapprott, 335 U.S. at 612. However, once the Government has met its burden of proving that a naturalized citizen improperly procured his naturalization, the court has no discretion to excuse the defendant's conduct and must enter a judgment of denaturalization. Fedorenko, 449 U.S. at 517. Furthermore, where, as here, the “Defendant has not contested the Government's facts or evidence, the Court must assume the Government's facts are true and decide whether it has satisfied the legal requirements for denaturalization.” United States v. Campos, No. 1:16-CV-20777, 2016 WL 8678885, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 3, 2016).
The Government maintains that the undisputed facts establish four independent legal grounds for denaturalization:
The Court shall address each ground in turn.
There are several statutory requirements that an applicant for naturalization must meet before obtaining citizenship. 8 U.S.C. § 1427(a). Among those statutory requirements is the mandate that no person shall be naturalized unless the person “during all periods referred to in this subsection has been and still is a person of good moral character . . . .” 8 U.S.C. § 1427(a)(3). An applicant statutorily lacks good moral character if he commits any number of specified offenses during the statutory period and later either is convicted or admits commission of the crime. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(3). These specified offenses include the commission of “a crime involving moral turpitude . . . or an attempt or conspiracy to commit such a crime” if the individual was convicted of or admits to committing the crime. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I).
The required statutory period for Merino began five years prior to filing his naturalization application, continuing through the time he took the Oath of Allegiance and became a naturalized United States citizen. 8 U.S.C. § 1427(a). Merino applied for naturalization on November 16, 2016 (ECF No. 1-10) and took his Oath of Allegiance and became a naturalized U.S. citizen on April 21, 2018 (ECF No. 1-11). Therefore, Merino was required to demonstrate good moral character from November 16, 2011 through April 21, 2018. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial