Yun v. Zanotti, Civil Action 1:20-cv-1062 (RDA/TCB)
| Decision Date | 30 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 1:20-cv-1062 (RDA/TCB) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
| Parties | WOO SUB YUN, Petitioner, v. KIMBERLY ZANOTTI, et al., Respondents. |
This matter comes before the Court on a Rule 56 Motion for Summary Judgment brought by Respondents (“Respondents”) in this Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) case. Dkt. 12. The Court dispenses with oral argument as it would not aid in the decisional process. Fed.R.Civ.P. 78(b); E.D. Va. Loc. Civ. R. 7(J). This matter has been fully briefed and is now ripe for disposition.
Considering Respondents' Motion for Summary Judgment together with Respondents' Memorandum in Support (Dkt. 13), Petitioner Woo Sub Yun's (“Petitioner”) Opposition (Dkt 19), and Respondents' Reply (Dkt. 21), it is hereby ORDERED that Respondents' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. For the reasons that follow, judgment will be entered against Petitioner.
Summary judgment may be granted only where there are no genuine disputes of material fact. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. Accordingly, the Court must first identify the material facts as to which no genuine dispute exists. The following facts are derived from the parties' respective lists of undisputed material facts and are either undisputed or considered in the light most favorable to Petitioner, the non-moving party. See Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650, 651 (2014); see also Respondents' Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (Dkt. 13 at 6-11); Petitioner's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (Dkt. 19 at 1-6).
1. Petitioner first entered the United States on December 10, 2004, on a B-2 visitor visa, with authorization to stay in the country until June 9, 2005. See Dkt. 13-1; Dkt. 1-2 at 3; see also 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(B).
2. Petitioner's original Form I-94 provided a departure deadline, but Petitioner remained in the United States beyond this date based upon his visitor visa. He has “continuously been physically residing in the United States and never departed from the United States” since his “initial entry on December 10, 2004.” Dkt. 1-2 at 3-4. Petitioner disputes that this fact is material, citing the “immediate relative” exemption under Section 245(c)(4) of the INA. Dkt. 19 at 2.
3. Nearly three years after this expiration date, on April 29, 2008, Petitioner filed a Form I-539 application to extend his B-2 visitor status. Dkt. 13-3. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) database indicates that Petitioner's I-539 application stated that his last date of entry to the United States was November 1, 2007, not December 10, 2004. Id. Petitioner's Form I-539 application was approved on October 20, 2008. Id. ¶ 3. Petitioner disputes that he submitted his I-539 Form on his own and asserts he had no knowledge that this form was filed on his behalf and had been approved.
4. On May 29, 2008, Petitioner submitted a Form I-485 application for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident. Ex. C (Form I-485); Dkt. 3-2 at 3-4. That same date, Petitioner's wife, a United States citizen, also filed a Petition for Alien Relative (Form I-130), on Petitioner's behalf. Dkt. 13-4; Dkt. 3-2 at 3-4. 5. Petitioner's completed Form I-485 stated that he last entered the United States on November 1, 2007 as a visitor. Dkt. 13-3 at 1. Attached to that Form I-485 was a copy of a Form I-94 departure record, which showed that he was granted admission to the United States on November 1, 2007, as well as a copy of a stamp on Petitioner's passport supporting that admission. Id. at 10. For his part, Petitioner maintains that these documents were submitted on his behalf by his then-immigration counsel, who prepared all of the paperwork submitted for his Form I-485. Dkt. 19 at 4.
6. Petitioner's Form I-485 also represented that he had “not, by fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact, sought to procure or procured a visa, other documentation, entry into the United States, or any immigration benefit.” Id. at 3.
7. Petitioner signed his Form I-485 on May 16, 2008, under penalty of perjury, representing that “this application and the evidence submitted with it is all true and correct.” Id. at 4. Petitioner maintains that he signed the form without reviewing it in its entirely, trusting that his attorney prepared the form correctly based on true facts and evidence. Dkt. 19 at 4.
8. Petitioner's Form I-485 did not reveal that he had not left the United States since he arrived on December 10, 2004. Dkt. 13 at 8; Dkt. 19 at 4.
9. On October 20, 2008, the Form I-130 and Form I-485 were both approved and Petitioner was granted lawful permanent resident status on a conditional basis. Dkt 3-2 at 4, 13-14.
10. On December 9, 2010, the conditions on Petitioner's lawful permanent resident status were removed. Dkt. 13-5 at 3.
11. On September 24, 2014, United States Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) questioned Petitioner at Dulles International Airport upon his return to the United States after a visit abroad regarding the I-94 card that Petitioner attached to his Form I-485 application for lawful permanent resident status. Dkt. 1, ¶ 20.
12. On October 31, 2014, an attorney representing Petitioner submitted a legal memorandum to CBP in response to its inquiry acknowledging that the I-94 card was fraudulent, but representing that Mr. Yun was not aware of the fraudulent I-94 card until CBP brought the card to his attention in 2014. Dkt. 3-2 at 3-4. Petitioner also acknowledged that, contrary to the information provided in his Form I-485 application, Petitioner had remained in the United States continuously since December 10, 2004 and had not entered the United States on November 1, 2007. Dkt. 3-2 at 3-4.
13. On December 4, 2014, CBP admitted Petitioner as a returning lawful permanent resident. Dkt. 1, ¶ 22; Dkt. 3-3.
14. On June 25, 2015, Petitioner filed a Form N-400 application for naturalization. Dkt. 13-6; Dkt. 1, ¶ 23.
15. On March 2, 2017, USCIS conducted Petitioner's naturalization application interview. During the interview, and after being placed under oath, Mr. Yun testified that he had “not given any United States Government officials any information or documentation that was false, fraudulent, or misleading.” Dkt. 13-6 at 17; Dkt. 13-7, ¶¶ 3-4. Petitioner also testified that he had “not lied to any United States Government official to gain entry or admission into the United States or to gain immigration benefits while in the United States.” Id.
16. On March 14, 2017, USCIS denied Mr. Yun's naturalization application on the grounds that he failed to establish that he has been lawfully admitted for permanent residence. Dkt. 13-3. USCIS found that at the time of his previous adjustment of status, Petitioner was inadmissible to the United States pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) because he made willful misrepresentations in his Form I-539 and Form I-485 applications regarding his last date of entry to the United States and he submitted a fraudulent I-94 card with both applications to support those false statements. Id. at 3-4. USCIS also found that Petitioner provided false testimony during his naturalization interview with the intent to procure immigration benefits, which rendered Petitioner statutorily without the good moral character required to become a citizen. Id.
17. On April 17, 2017, Petitioner noticed an administrative appeal of USCIS's initial denial. Dkt. 13-8. Petitioner also submitted a legal brief arguing that USCIS's denial was erroneous as a matter of law because he had never engaged in fraud or made material willful misrepresentations. Dkt. 13-9.
18. On April 25, 2018, USCIS conducted an interview of Petitioner with respect to his request for a hearing. Dkt. 13-2, ¶ 2.
19. On May 12, 2020, USCIS denied Petitioner's Form N-336 and affirmed its previous denial of his naturalization application. Dkt. 13-10. USCIS affirmed its decision on the basis that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that he had been lawfully admitted for permanent resident status. Id. at 2. USCIS found that to avoid discovery he had lied in his I-539 application to extend his B-2 status, Petitioner provided materially false information in his adjustment of status application regarding his last date of entry to the United States. Id. at 2-4. USCIS concluded that Petitioner was ineligible for naturalization under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) because he sought to procure immigration benefits by willfully misrepresenting material facts; USCIS further found that he had violated 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(2) because his Form I-485 contained material false statements. Id. at 5.
20. On September 10, 2020, Petitioner filed this action under 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c), seeking de novo review and adjudication of his naturalization application. Dkt. 1.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Id. at 615-16 (quoting Spriggs v. Diamond Auto. Glass, 242 F.3d 179, 183 (4th Cir. 2001)). The moving party bears the “initial burden” of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact. Sutherland v. SOS Intern., Ltd., 541 F.Supp.2d 787, 789 (E.D. Va. 2008) (citing Celotex Corp v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986)). “Once a motion for summary judgment is properly made and supported, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial