Unpublished Disposition, 925 F.2d 1471 (9th Cir. 1991)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 925 F.2d 1471 (9th Cir. 1991)

No. 89-55798.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Before BEEZER, KOZINSKI and RYMER Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM** 

Elgin Kwong ("Kwong") appeals the district court's judgment in favor of Frank Chao-Pin Lin ("Lin"). Lin brought an action alleging that Kwong misrepresented to him that he would legally obtain U.S. citizenship for Lin. The district court determined that Kwong intentionally defrauded Lin and was therefore estopped from asserting illegality of contract as a defense to the litigation.

We affirm.

BACKGROUND FACTS

In 1979, Lin sought to obtain his U.S. Citizenship. To achieve this purpose, Lin enlisted the aid of Kwong. Kwong told Lin that he would legally obtain U.S. citizenship for Lin for $60,000. Lin paid Kwong an additional $10,000 to secure legal permanent residence status for Lin's wife and five children after Lin was sworn in as a U.S. citizen. In the end, Lin never obtained legal citizenship status, but paid Kwong $57,740 for his "services."

The United States government charged Lin with willfully procuring his unlawful naturalization pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §§ 1427(a) (1) and 1429. Lin filed a third party complaint alleging fraud against Kwong, contending that Kwong had misrepresented to him that he would legally obtain his U.S. Citizenship.

JURISDICTION AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

This court reviews the district court's factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard. Fed.Rule.Civ.Pro. 52(a); Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 573, 105 S. Ct. 1504, 1511, 84 L. Ed. 2d 518 (1985). This court defers to the trial court's ability to judge the credibility of the witnesses.

DISCUSSION

Kwong argues that he did not defraud Lin; rather, Lin knew that the contract he entered with Kwong was to illegally procure his U.S. citizenship. Therefore, since the contract is devoid of fraud, Kwong may assert illegality as a defense to the contract.

The district court, however, determined that in light of the facts presented, Kwong committed fraud. Even if this court were to assess the facts differently, under the clearly erroneous standard of review, this court cannot reverse findings made by the trier of fact simply because we are convinced that we would have decided the case differently. Anderson, 470 U.S. at 473; 105 S. Ct. at 1511. Moreover, we are "not at liberty to disturb the credibility determinations made by the ... district court." United States v. Kerr, 876 F.2d 1440, 1444 (9th Cir. 1989). Since the district court's factual findings are entirely plausible in light of the record, we must affirm.

A party who misleads another to his detriment is estopped from obtaining the benefits of his misdeeds. Kleneicke v. Montecito Water Dist., 147 Cal. App. 3d 240, 245, 195 Cal. Rptr. 58 (1983). Since Kwong fraudulently misrepresented that he would obtain legal citizenship status for Lin, Kwong is estopped from raising the defense of illegality of contract.

CONCLUSION

In light of the record below, the district court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous; therefore, this court should AFFIRM the district court's judgment.

 *

The panel finds this case appropriate for submission without oral argument pursuant to 9th Cir.R. 34-4 and Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)

 **

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.