Hadi v. Duke et al, No. 4:2017cv02370 - Document 37 (S.D. Tex. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 24 Opposed MOTION for Summary Judgment . (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified.(gclair, 4)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Hadi v. Duke et al Doc. 37 United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED IN THE UN ITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION GHASSM April 12, 2019 David J. Bradley, Clerk ADNAN HADl , Plaintiff, KIRSTJEN NIELSEN , SECRETARY , U .S . DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY and MARK SIEGL , FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR , U .S . CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION SERVICES , CIVIL ACTION NO . H -17-2370 Defendants . MEMOKAHRUM OPINION AND ORD ER Plaintiff Ghassan Adnan Hadi (''plaintiff'' or uHadi'') filed this action on August 2017, against Kirstjen Nielsen, the Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security , and Mark Siegl, a Field Office Director for United States Citizenship & Immigration Services (uDefendants'') seeking de novo review of his denied application for naturalization . Pending before the court is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (''Defendants' MSJ'') (Docket Entry No. 24). For the reasons explained below , Defendants' MSJ will be granted . 1. Factual and Procedural Backlround Hadi applied for naturalization by subm itting a form N -400, Application for Naturalization C'N-400'$ to United States Citizenship and Immigration Services I'AUSCIS''I on November 22, Dockets.Justia.com 2013, on the basis of hav ing been a Lawful Permanent Resident for at least five years x Hadi was interviewed by Immigration Service Officer Nancy Kugler C'ISO Kuglerr') on August Kugler placed Hadi under oath and conducted 2014.2 and recorded an administrative hearing on his application .? On January l3, 2015, USCIS denied Hadi's naturalization app lication because he failed to demonstrate that he had been a person of good moral character during the statutory period .4 USCIS based this finding on false statements made by Hadi to ISO Kugler during his naturalization interv iew . USCIS found that Hadi failed to disclose that he had used several other names in the past . USCIS also found that Hadi provided inconsistent testimony about his (and his family's) service the Iraqi military and connection to the Ba 'ath Party , which was affiliated with the lsee USCIS File No. A212205201, Subject Ghassan Adnan Hadi (nHadi's USCIS Fi1e''), Exhibit A to Defendants' Appendix in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment CADefendants' Appendix'o , Docket Entry No. 25, pp . 230-39 (The page numbers used to identify documents in Hadi's USCIS File are the page numbers handwritten in the bottom right-hand corner and not the page numbers listed on CM/ECF.). 2See Transcript dated August 25 , 2014 , N -400 Hearing (uTranscript of Hearing with ISO Kugler'o , Exhibit B to Defendants' Appendix, Docket Entry No . 25-1, p . 2 ln . 2-11 Epage and line numbers correspond to the page and line numbers on the hearing transcript and not the page numbers listed on CM/ECF.) 3See id . at 3 ln . 12 -21 . 4see Hadi's USCIS File , Exh ibit A to De fendants' Appendix , Docket Entry No . 25, pp . 62-66 . totalitarian regime of Saddam determined that Hadi had given imm igration benefit'' at his Hussein .s Accordingly , Bfalse testimony naturalization USCIS to obtain an interv iew and was therefore statutorily barred from being found to be a person of good moral character.6 See 8 U .S .C. 1l0l(f) (6) (''No person shall be regarded as, or found to be , a person of good moral character who, during the period for which good moral character is required to be established is , or was-- one who has given false testimony for the purpose of obtaining any benefits under this chapter . Hadi filed a timely adm inistrative appeal in February of 2015 .7 On July 2015 , Hadi appeared before ISO Donna Jones (%AISO Jones'') for an interview in connection with his appeal. ISO Jones placed Hadi under administrativ e hearing .8 oath and conducted and recorded an The record ing of Hadi's interv iew with ISO Jones ended abruptly while ISO Jones was still questioning Hadi .g On April 4, 2017, USCIS reaffirmed its January 15, 2015, ssee id . at 66 . 6See id . 7See Hadi's USCIS File (Form N-336 Request for a Hearing on a Decision in Naturalization Proceedings), Exhibit A to Defendants' Appendix , Docket Entry No . 25 , pp . 57-61 . 8see Transcript dated July 14 , 2015 , N -336 Hearing (uTranscript of Hearing with ISO Jonesro , Exhibit C to Defendants' Appendix, Docket Entry No. 25-1, p . 2 1n. 2 - p . 3 1n . 17 Epage and line numbers correspond to the page and line numbers on the hearing transcript, not the page numbers listed on CM/ECF). gsee id . at 26 . The parties provide no exp lanation as to why a complete transcrip t of Hadi's interview with ISO Jones is unavailable . Becau se it is possib le that Hadi could have clarified (continued- .) denial of Hadi's N -400 on the ground that Hadi failed to establish that he was a person of good moral character x o Hadi filed this action on August 2017, seeking de novo review of his denied application for naturalization x l Defendants' MSJ argues that Hadi ''cannot as a matter of 1aw establish that he was and continues to be a person of good moral character during the requisite period , and has otherwise failed to create a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he has met his burden of demonstrating good moral character .''lz II . SlAmmarv Judcm ent Standard Summary judgment is appropriate if the movant establishes that there is no genuine dispute about any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. Civ. 56(a) Disputes about material facts are genuine uif the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party .'' Anderson v . Libertv Lobby , Inc w 2505 , 2510 gl- .continued) initially false statements made during his interview with ISO Jones after the recording stopped , the court did not rely on false statements made by Hadi to ISO Jones in determining whether Hadi was statutorily barred from establishing that he is of good moral character . losee Hadi's USCIS File , Exhibit A to Defendants' Appendix , Docket Entry No . 25, pp . 2-6 . llsee Plaintiff 's Original Complaint for Declaratory Injunctive Relief, Docket Entry No . 1, pp . 1-2 . l2see Defendants ' MSJ , Docket Entry No . 24 , p . 1 . and (1986). The moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law if uthe nonmoving party has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of her case with respect to which she has the burden of proof .'' Celotex Corp . v . Catrett , 106 S . Ct . 2548, 2552 (1986) A party moving for summary judgment ''must 'demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact,' but need not neqate the elements of the nonmovant's case .'' Little v . Liguid A ir Corp ., F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (per curiam ) (quoting Celotex, Ct. at 2553). uIf the moving party fails to meet this initial burden , the motion must be denied , regardless of the nonmovant's response v'' Id . If the moving party meets this burden , Rule 56 (c) requires the nonmovant to go beyond the pleadings and show by affidavits , depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions on file , or other admissible evidence that specific facts exist over which there is a genuine issue for trial. Id . In review ing the ev idence uthe court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party , and may not make cred ibility determinations or weigh the ev idence .'' Reeves v . Sanderson Plumbing Products, Incw 120 S. Ct. 2097, 2110 (2000). The court resolves factual controversies in favor of the nonmovant, ''but only when there is an actual controversy , that is, when b0th parties have submitted ev idence of contradictory facts .'' Little, F .3d at 1075 . - 5- 111 . Applicable Law Under 8 U.S.C . 5 1421 (c) the district court reviews USCIS'S decision to deny a naturalization application de novo . Aparicio v . Blakeway , 302 F.3d 437, 445 (5th Cir . 2002). satisfy certain An applicant for naturalization must statu tory and regulatory requirements . See , e .q ., 8 U .S .C . 55 1101, 1427, 1429, 1430; 8 C .F .R . 55 310 , 312 , 316. The applicant for naturalization ''shall bear the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she meets a11 of the requirements for naturalization .'' C.F.R. 316 .2(b). Because citizenship once granted cannot lightly be taken away , '''doubts should be resolved in favor of the United States and against the claimant .''' Berenyi v . District Director . Imm igration and Naturalization Serv ice , 87 S . Ct . 666, (1967). When an applicant fails to show that he has met a11 statutory requirements for becoming a naturalized citizen , summary judgment for the government may be appropriate. Chan v. Gantner, 464 F.3d 289, 295-96 (2d Cir . 2006); see also Kariuki v . Tarango, 7O9 F.3d 495, 503 (5th Cir. 2013) (holding that a ''hearing de novo'' within the meaning of the INA encompasses review on summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56). To be eligib le for naturalization under 8 U .S .C . 5 1440, an applicant must demonstrate that he 'lhas been and still is a person of good moral character'' during the five years prior to the submission of h is application for naturalization , and continuing - 6- throughout the naturalization process. 8 U .S .C. 5 1427 (a) 8 C.F.R . 55 316.10 (a)(1), (a) (2). Certain statutory bars preclude a finding of good moral character. See 8 U .S.C. 5 110l (f). One of the statutory bars mandates that ulnlo person shall be regarded as, or found to be, a person of good moral character who, during the period for which good established , is or was moral character is required to be one who has given false testimony for the purpose of obtaining any benefits under' ' the Immigration and Nationality Act (UINA'') 8 U .S .C . 1101(f)(6) ''Testimony'' is limited to oral statements made under oath and does not include other types of m isrepresentations or concealments, such as false statements on documents or statements not made under oath . Kunqys v . United States, 108 S. Ct. 1537, 1551 (1988). The false information need not have been material to trigger the statutory bar. Id . at 1552. For the statutory bar in 5 1l01(f)(6) to apply, the dishonest statements need only be made with the subjective intent of obtaining an imm igration benefit . Even if an applicant is not Id . statutorily barred from demonstrating that he is a person of good moral character under 1l01(f) 5 110l (f) also contains a ucatch-all'' provision : uThe fact that any person is not within any of the (statutorily barredq classes shall not preclude a finding that for other reasons such person is or was not of good moral character .'' 1l01 (f). determining whether an 8 U .S .C . applicant meets the requirement of the catch-all provision, the adjudicator must - 7- consider a11 of the petitioner's evidence on factors relevant to the determination of good moral character . United States v . Danq , 488 F.3d 1135, 1139 (9th determinations are made on Cir. a 2007). Moral character ucase-by -case basis taking into account the elements enumerated in this section and the standards of the average citizen in the community of residence .'' 8 C .F .R . 5 316.l0(a) (2). IV . Analvsis Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment because Hadi is statutorily barred from establishing that he is a person of good moral character under 5 1101 (f)(6). Alternatively, Defendants argue that even Hadi is not statutorily barred from establishing good moral character, Hadi cannot meet his burden of proof to demonstrate that he is of good moral character under ï 1l01(f)'s catch-all provision. For summary judgment to be appropriate, Defendants must show that there are no genuine disputes of material fact as to Hadi's inability to demonstrate that he is of good moral character . If Defendants satisfy this in itial burden , Hadi must show through admissible evidence that disputed fact issues remain . See Kariuki, 709 F.3d at 505 (u lElvidence of Kariuki's prior bad conduct was relevant to ruling on his naturalization application , and Kariuki needed to rebut it with sufficiently probative evidence of good present conduct to survive summary judgment.'o . A. False Testimony Defendants cite two categories statutorily bar Hadi from character: false prov ing that he testimony that is of good moral (1) Hadi failed to disclose a1l of his names in his interview with ISO Kugler , and Hadi made false and m isleading statements regarding h is and his family 's affiliation with the Ba 'ath Party and the Iraqi military to ISOS Kugler and Jones . Because Hadi bears the burden of proving that he is of good moral character , Hadi bears the burden of showing that he did not testify falsely . See Berenyi, 87 S. at 671 ('%EI)t has been universally accepted that the burden is on the alien applicant show his eligibility for citizenship in every respect.'') Hadi's Names and A liases The N-400 instructs : prov ide them below .''l3 ''If you have ever used other names , Hadi left this section blank .l4 In his naturalization interview , ISO Kugler asked Hadi if he had ever used any name othe r than uGhassan Adnan Hadi ,'' to which Hadi responded ''No / ' ma 'am .',15 l3See Hadi 's USCIS File , Exhibit Docket Entry No . 25, p . 230 . to Defendants ' Appendix , l4see id. (showing only ISO Kugler's handwritten notation from Hadi's interview stating nnone used'z). l5see Transcript of Hearing with ISO Kugler , Exhibit B Defendants' Appendix , Docket Entry No . 25-1, p . 2 1n . 2-11 . - 9- The parties do not dispute that Hadi 's interview with ISO Kugler constitutes ''testimony'' under 5 110l (f)(6) Defendants argue that this testimony was false because Hadi had used other names . When Hadi app lied for refugee status , he submitted forms to USCIS in which he represented that in addition to using the name uGhassan Adnan Hadiy'' he also used several other names , including : Gassan Adnan ; Ghassan Adman Hadi; Ghassan Adnan Hadi Tofan A 1 Fayadh; and Gassan Al Fayadh x6 Hadi argues that the testimony he gave to ISO Kugler was not false because the various names cited by Defendants are merely other forms of his Arab ic name . Hadi argues that any misinterpretation or failure to disclose the other names in the interview was not the result of intentional deception and that he did not omit the names w ith the intent of obtaining an imm igration benefit .l7 In order for 5 1101 (f) (6)'s statutory bar to apply, Hadi must have denied using another name with the subjective intent to obtain an immigration benefit . There is no evidence that Hadi's response to ISO Kugler 's question about his 'ïother names'' was made with the requisite intent . Defendants do not argue that knowledge of Hadi 's l6See Hadi 's USCIS File , Exhibit A to Defendants ' Appendix , Docket Entry No . 25-1 , p . 300 . UHadi also argues that he had already disclosed the prior forms of his name to USCIS during other parts of the immigration process . However , this is not relevant to the inquiry of whether he gave false testimony at his interv iew w ith ISO Kugler . Section 1101(f)(6) is not concerned with the substance of the false testimony , but rather the fact that the applicant gave false testimony . other names would have impacted his application for naturalization . On the record before the court it is plausible that Hadi 's answer was the result an misrepresentation . oversight instead of an intentional The court therefore finds that Hadi is not statutorily barred from establishing good moral character for neglecting to disclose his other names because genuine issues of fact remain as to whether Hadi did so with the intent to obtain an immigration benefit . Affiliation M ilitarv With Ba 'ath Political Party and Iragi Defendants argue that because Hadi's statements regarding his affiliation with the Ba 'ath Party are contradictory , some of his statements must necessarily be false . Defendants rely on inconsistencies between Hadi's written subm issions to USCIS and his testimony before ISOs Kugler and Jones to show that he testified falsely . However , false statements made in written submissions are not l'false testimony'' within the meaning of 5 1l01(f) (6) -- Hadi is only statutorily barred under 5 1101(f) (6) if a statement he made to ISO Kugler or ISO Jones under oath is false . Inconsistencies between Hadi's oral and written testimony alone , therefore, are not sufficient to warrant app lication of the statutory bar . Only a false oral statement under oath will give rise to the statutory bar . Defendants argue that Hadi provided false testimony because of the conflicting nature of some statements made by Hadi during his naturalization interviews . While some of the statements made by Hadi to ISOs Kugler and Jones are contradictory , Hadi timely - 11 - corrected his responses to some of their inqu iries . Ruiz-Del-cid v . Holder, 765 F.3d 635, 64l (uAccording to the BIA's longstanding See (6th Cir. 2014) interpretation of (5 1101(f)(6)'s false testimony exclusion), applicants who gave false testimony but corrected their testimony voluntarily and prior to exposure or threat of imminent exposure may still be persons of good moral character.'') (citing Matter of M- , 9 1. & N . Dec. 118, 119 (BIA 1960)). For example, ISO Kugler asked Hadi whether he had ever served in the Iraqi military , and Hadi rep lied ''No , ma 'am .''l8 Later in the interview , Hadi corrected that he served in the Iraqi military xg Contradictions such as this that Hadi timely corrected cannot support the application of 5 1101 (f)(6)'s statutory bar . However , Hadi made at least one false statement to ISO Kugler in his naturalization interv iew that he failed to correct . Kugler asked Hadi whether he had ''ever been ISO a member of or associated in any way w ith any organization , association , fund , foundation , party , club , society , or similar group the United States or any other p1ace .''20 Hadi responded ''No , ma 'am .''2l While Hadi mentioned later in the interview that he believed the l8see Transcript of Hearing with ISO Kugler , Exhibit B Defendants' Appendix , Docket Entry No . 25-1, p . 29 ln . 16-17 . 19see id . at 30 ln . 6-8 . 20see id . at 19 ln . 15-19. 2lsee id . at 19 ln . - 12 - Ba'ath Party to be responsible for h is father 's death ,22 he never acknowledged h is own membership in that organization . USCIS cited Hadi's failure to disclose his affiliation with the Ba'ath Party to ISO Kugler in its Decision as basis for deny ing his application for naturalization .z3 When Hadi denied being affiliated with a 'lparty'' despite his prior involvement testimony . with the Ba'ath Party , he provided false In light of the Un ited States' interest in carefully examining applicants affiliated with Saddam Hussein 's regime , it is reasonable to conclude that Hadi was aware that his affiliation with the Ba'ath Party could negatively affect his app lication for naturalization . He therefore had an interest in downplay ing his involvement with the Ba 'ath Party . Hadi provides no explanation for his failure to disclose th is information to ISO Kugler . While Hadi prov ided detail on his membership and involvement with the Barath Party in previous app lications submitted to USCIS and in his later interv iew w ith ISO Jones, he did not disclose h is affiliation with the Ba 'ath Party during his application for naturalization until after his N-400 was rejected by USCIS. is not relevant that USCIS may have been aware of Hadi's affiliation with the Ba'ath Party -- 5 1101 (f) (6) is concerned not with the substance of 22see id . at 29 14-15 . 23See Hadi's USCIS File , Exhibit A to Defendants' Appendix , Docket Entry No . 25-1 , pp . 69-70 . - 13 - false testimony , but the fact that an applicant provided false testimony . Only one false statement under oath with the intent to obtain an immigration benefit is required 5 1101(f)(6)'s statutory bar. for the application Because Hadi provided of false testimony to ISO Kugler with the intent to obtain the benefit of naturalization , Hadi is statutorily barred from demonstrating that he is of good moral character . B. Section l10l (f)'s Catch-All Provision Defendants argue that even if the statutory bar 1l01(f)(6) is inapplicable, Hadi is still unable to meet his burden of proof to show that he is of good moral character . Defendants argue that Hadi engaged in a pattern of dishonest behavior warranting a finding that he is not of good moral character under 5 1101 (f)'s catch-all provision. In his Response, Hadi argues that he has always been honest about his relationship with the Ba 'ath Party . Examples found in Hadi's USCIS file , however , demonstrate otherwise . Hadi's USCIS file contains several conflicting statements . is impossible for all of the statements made by Hadi in connection with his applications for refugee status , lawful permanent resident status, and naturalization to be true . For example , when asked by - 14 - ISO Jones if he attended Ba zath Party meetings, Hadi first stated uNo , no meetings, ma 'am .f'21 Later in the same interv iew , Hadi admitted that he attended one meeting per month .25 When apply ing for refugee status , Hadi admitted that he was a member of the Ba'ath Party but stated that he did not attend any meetingsx6 During an interview in conjunction with his refugee status application in 2008, however , Hadi said b0th that he uattended weekly meetings'' and attended meetings neither once or twice a month .''27 In response to an interrogatory in Connection With this action , Hadi stated that he nattended meetings every one or two weeks .''28 Hadi's USCIS file contains other sim ilar conflicts, most relating to his affiliation w ith the Ba 'ath Party and the Iraqi mi1itary .29 Hadi's form N -400 also contains false statements . For 24See Transcript of Hearing with ISO Jones, Exh ibit C Defendants' Append ix , Docket Entry No . 25-1, p . 25 ln . l5 . 25see id . at 26 ln . 26see Hadi's USCIS File (Form 1-590, Registration for Classification as Refugee), Exhibit A to Defendants' Appendix, Docket Entry No . 25-1 , pp . 287, 290 . 27see Hadi's USCIS File , Exhibit A to Defendants' Appendix , Docket Entry No . 25-1, pp . 431-32 . 28see Responses to Interrogatories, Exhibit D to Defendants' Appendix , Docket Entry No . 25-1, pp . 10-11 . Mcompare Hadi 's USCIS File, Exhibit A to Defendants ' Appendix , Docket Entry No . 25-1, p . 290 (stating that Hadi said he was classified as a uSupporter ,'' the first level of membership in the Ba'ath Party), with Responses to Interrogatories, Exhibit D to Defendants' Appendix, pp . 10-11 (Hadi claimed he was the second (continued- .) - 15 - example, Hadi denied association , fund being a member of any ''organization , foundation , party , club , society or similar group ,'' despite his involvement in the Ba 'ath Party .30 Hadi also failed to disclose previously used nam es .3l Hadi bears the burden of proving that he is currently (and has been for the statutory period) a person of good moral character. Hadi has failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he is a person of good moral character under 5 11O1 (f). V. Conclusion & Order Hadi is statutorily barred from satisfy ing his burden of proof to show that he is of good moral character because he provided false testimony with the subjective intent of obtaining an immigration benefit . In addition , regardless of whether Hadi is statutorily barred from establishing that he is of good moral character under 5 1101(f)(6), the totality of the evidence shows that Hadi will not be able to satisfy his burden to prove that he zgt...continued) level of uNasir'' in the Ba'ath Party). 30see Hadi's USCIS File , Exhibit A to Defendants' Appendix , Docket Entry No . 25-1 , p . 236. Hcompare id . (Form G-325C) at 300 (listing aliases Gassan Adnan; Ghassan Adman Hadi ; Ghassan Adnan Hadi Tofan A l Fayadh ; and Gassan A1 Fayadh), with id. at 230 (claiming no additional names). - 16- is of good moral character under 5 1101 (f). Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 24) is therefore GRANTED . SIGNED at Houston , Texas, on this 12th day of April , 2019. 2* SIM LAKE UNITED STATES D ISTRICT JUDGE
]]>
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.
