United States v. Rahman
| Decision Date | 25 October 2022 |
| Docket Number | 19-cv-1113-PB,Opinion 2022 DNH 135 |
| Parties | United States of America v. Sheikh Enamur Rahman, a/k/a Mohammed Enam |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Hampshire |
The United States filed this civil action to denaturalize the defendant, Sheikh Enamur Rahman, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a). The government claims that Rahman's citizenship must be revoked because it was procured illegally and through willful misrepresentations. The government now moves for summary judgment. Because Rahman has not demonstrated that any fact material to the resolution of this matter remains in genuine dispute and the government has shown that it is entitled to prevail, I grant the government's motion.
In 1994, Rahman came to New York City from Bangladesh on a nonimmigrant visa under his true name, Sheikh Enamur Rahman. Doc. 49-1 at 1. He quickly realized that he enjoyed being in the United States and wished to remain longer. Doc. 49-3 at 8. Rahman engaged the services of then-attorney Sheldon Walker in hopes of securing a work authorization. Id. at 2.
Upon arriving at Walker's office, Rahman was able to communicate with one of Walker's employees in his native tongue, Bengali. Doc. 49-1 at 1-2. The employee handed Rahman blank forms and told him to sign them, assuring Rahman it was standard procedure for procuring a work authorization. Id. at 2. The employee instructed Rahman to sign the forms using a “different name, a name in English that would be easy to write.” Id. The employee recommended the name “Mohammed Enam,” and Rahman signed the forms “Enam.” Id.; Doc. 45-1 at 105. Although Rahman believed the forms were a request for work authorization, they were in fact an application for asylum (Form I-589). Id.; Doc. 49-3 at 19.
The employee told Rahman he would next need to procure a passport under the name Mohammed Enam. Doc. 49-1 at 3. To do so, the employee instructed Rahman to contact the Bangladeshi consulate in New York City, identify himself as Mohammed Enam, and state that he had lost his passport. Id. Although Rahman had not lost his passport, he followed the employee's instructions and successfully obtained a Bangladeshi passport under the name Mohammed Enam. Doc 45-2 at 93-94. Rahman subsequently obtained a New York State driver's license, a New York City taxi license, a social security number, and a work authorization card, all under the name Mohammed Enam. Doc. 45-1 at 16-17 64-65.
Walker's office filled out the remainder of Rahman's asylum application, Form I-589, without any further input or review from Rahman, falsely claiming that he was seeking asylum to avoid political persecution. Id. at 102-103; Doc. 49-1 at 2. Besides the false name, the form misrepresented Rahman's dates of birth and arrival in the United States, and it made no reference to his true name. Doc. 45-1 at 61-62, 101-106. Walker submitted the completed Form I-589 to the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”), along with Rahman's new passport. Id. at 105; Doc 45-2 at 92-95. Rahman was then assigned an “A-number”[1] under the name Mohammed Enam. Doc. 45-2 at 109.
Rahman was later interviewed by an INS officer in connection with his asylum application. Doc. 49-1 at 3. In the presence of the officer, Rahman signed the Form I-589 as “Enam,” affirming that he “kn[ew] the contents of th[e] application” and “that they [were] true to the best of [his] knowledge.” Doc. 45-1 at 30, 164. The officer concluded that Rahman was not credible based on material inconsistencies between his Form I-589 and statements he made during his interview. Id. at 132. Accordingly, the INS referred the matter to the New York Immigration Court and issued an Order to Show Cause charging Rahman with deportability. Id. at 130, 135-137. Although Rahman does not recall being served with the Order to Show Cause, he admitted that his signature appears on a portion of the document acknowledging that it was personally served on him. Doc. 49-1 at 3; Doc. 51-2 at 8-9; Doc. 45-1 at 136.
On September 8, 1997, Rahman appeared in Immigration Court with a new attorney, Victor Veloso. Doc. 45-1 at 143. Attorney Veloso was substituting for Walker, who by that time had been indicted for filing over 5,000 fraudulent immigration applications. Doc. 49-1 at 4; see also United States v. Walker, No. 96-cr-736 (HB), 1997 WL 327093 (S.D.N.Y. June 12, 1997). At the hearing, Attorney Veloso withdrew Rahman's request for asylum and requested voluntary departure. Doc. 45-1 at 145. The Immigration Judge granted Rahman's request, with an alternative order for deportation that would become final should Rahman fail to depart the United States by March 9, 1998. Id. at 150, 157. Using a Bengali interpreter, Rahman confirmed that he understood the judge's order and would voluntarily depart the United States, although he now claims that he only made these statements pursuant to Attorney Veloso's instructions and did not understand their relevance. Id. at 146, 150; Doc. 49-1 at 4.
Following the hearing, Attorney Veloso explained to Rahman that withdrawing his application for asylum rendered it without effect. Doc. 49-1 at 4. As such, Rahman could “go on [his] way” and “did not have to worry about deportation.” Id. Rahman did not understand, nor did Attorney Veloso inform him, that he was required to leave the country and would be subject to deportation if he remained. Id.
Rahman did not leave the country, but rather moved to Atlanta, Georgia. Doc. 45-1 at 64. Consequently, Rahman became subject to a final deportation order on March 9, 1998. Id. at 157. Rahman claims that he never received notice of that order and did not become aware of its existence until the present litigation began. Doc. 49-1 at 4.
While in Atlanta, Rahman continued to occasionally go by Mohammed Enam, but he obtained a Georgia driver's license under his true name. Doc. 45-1 at 17-18, 170. Rahman eventually married and also obtained a marriage certificate under his true name. Doc. 45-2 at 100.
Rahman's wife, a United States citizen, contacted Attorney Teri Simmons to request assistance on Rahman's behalf. Id. at 2. Attorney Simmons asked Rahman and his wife to fill out intake paperwork, including a copy of a Form G-325A, which is a biographic information form submitted alongside an application for permanent residence. Id. at 19-22. Rahman completed the forms himself, with the exception of a section on one of the intake forms that requested his employment history. Doc. 49-1 at 6. In filling out the Form G-325A, Rahman left blank a section that requested disclosure of “all other names used.” Doc. 45-2 at 54.
Upon meeting, Rahman showed Attorney Simmons his New York driver's license under the name Mohammed Enam and explained that he had previously filed an application for asylum under that name. Doc. 49-1 at 5. Attorney Simmons told Rahman that he “should not refer to [his] use of the name Mohammed Enam.” Id. Rather, Attorney Simmons stated that she would use Rahman's true identity to adjust his status to that of a permanent resident based on his marriage to a United States citizen. Doc. 49-5 at 12. When discussing the relevant paperwork, Attorney Simmons advised Rahman “[n]ot to list” his prior use of the Mohammed Enam identity in response to “the question of whether or not he ever used any other names.” Id. at 13. She then prepared an application for permanent residence (Form I-485) and a biographic information form (Form G-325A) using the information Rahman and his wife had provided on the intake paperwork. Doc. 45-1 at 121; Doc. 45-2 at 23-24, 61, 66. These forms requested disclosure of “all other names used,” “social security #” and “A # (if any).” Doc. 45-2 at 58, 66. Rahman's form stated “none” in response to each question, thereby omitting his prior use of the Mohammed Enam identity and its attendant social security number and A-number. See id.
Attorney Simmons asked Rahman to review the completed forms and let her know of any changes that should be made. Id. at 56. Rahman did not review the forms in their entirety, but he nonetheless signed both forms “under penalty of perjury” and returned them to Attorney Simmons for submission. Doc. 49-1 at 7; Doc. 45-2 at 61, 66. Rahman was interviewed by a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)[2] officer in connection with his application, although he claims that he was not placed under oath during the interview or asked questions about his answers on the forms. Doc. 49-1 at 7. Rahman was subsequently granted legal permanent residence on January 17, 2004. Doc. 45-2 at 58.
Approximately two years later, Rahman contacted Attorney Kermit Zerr for assistance in applying for naturalization. Doc. 51-3 at 2. Pursuant to Attorney Simmons' advice, Rahman did not inform Attorney Zerr about his prior use of the Mohammed Enam identity or his application for asylum. Doc. 49-1 at 7. Attorney Zerr prepared an application for naturalization (Form N-400) on Rahman's behalf using his true name. Doc. 45-2 at 89. The form stated: “If you have ever used other names, provide them below,” to which Rahman responded “N/A,” which he understood at the time to mean “not applicable.” Doc. 45-2 at 80; Doc. 45-1 at 52. Additionally, the form asked if Rahman had (1) “ever given false or misleading information to any U.S. government official while applying for any immigration benefit or to prevent deportation, exclusion or removal;” (2) “ever been ordered to be removed, excluded or deported from the United States;” or (3) “ever applied for any kind of relief from removal, exclusion or deportation.” Doc. 45-2 at 87-88. Rahman responded “no” to each question and signed the form “under penalty of...
To continue reading
Request your trial