United States v. Drame

Background

Aboubacar Drame, who was born in Guinea, became a naturalized U.S. citizen on June 22, 2012. The Government brought this action to revoke his citizenship, alleging that he had misrepresented and concealed material facts and had illegally obtained his citizenship.

The court described several immigration applications and proceedings. In 1996, Drame entered the United States using another person’s identity and filed an asylum application under the name Soko Darmay, using biographical information that included a Liberian birthplace. He later testified under oath in immigration proceedings using that identity and admitted that the testimony was false. His asylum application was denied, although he received permission to leave voluntarily.

Drame later returned to the United States using his cousin’s passport and visa. In a 2001 asylum application, a 2004 application to adjust his status, and related interviews and affidavits, he used his own biographical information but stated that he had never used other names, been in deportation proceedings, or applied for asylum. He was granted asylum in 2002 and permanent-resident status in 2006. In his 2012 naturalization application and interview, he again stated that he had not used other names, given false information to obtain an immigration benefit, lied to obtain entry, or sought relief from deportation. He became a citizen after taking the oath of allegiance.

The Government moved for summary judgment on all three counts. Drame conceded that he made the relevant misstatements and omissions but argued that factual disputes existed about whether they were knowing, willful, or intended to deceive. He also argued that he had relied on immigration helpers, acted under duress or coercion, and that the Government had waited too long to bring the case.

Summary-Judgment Standard

Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. In a citizenship-revocation case, the Government must provide clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that citizenship should be revoked. The court held that summary judgment was proper because the undisputed evidence met that standard.

The court also noted that Drame had admitted the Government’s statement of material facts except for assertions about his mental state or intent. Because he did not submit a properly corresponding statement disputing those facts, the court treated the Government’s factual statement as admitted under the applicable local rule.

Count I: Unlawful Procurement of Immigration Benefits

The court held that Drame was never lawfully admitted for permanent residence because he had obtained immigration benefits through fraud or willful misrepresentation. The court applied the requirements that a misrepresentation or concealment must have been made, must have been willful, must have been material, and must have resulted in obtaining citizenship.

The court found that Drame’s misrepresentations were deliberate rather than innocent mistakes. Even if he did not understand the written 1996 application, the court found that his own admissions showed that he confirmed the false identity under oath during the asylum interview and immigration hearing. The court also found that he later knowingly concealed his prior identity and immigration proceedings in subsequent applications and interviews.

The court found the misrepresentations material because disclosure of Drame’s past identity, removal proceedings, and denied asylum claim would have led decisionmakers to investigate further and could have affected his eligibility. The court concluded that Drame obtained permanent-resident status through those misrepresentations and therefore granted summary judgment to the Government on Count I.

Count II: Good Moral Character

The court held that Drame lacked the good moral character required for naturalization. During the relevant period, he gave false sworn testimony that he had not provided false or misleading information to obtain an immigration benefit, had not lied to obtain entry into the United States, and had not applied for relief from deportation or removal.

Drame admitted that these statements were false and that he knew they were false. The court found that he made them during the naturalization process to obtain citizenship. Because false sworn testimony made for the purpose of obtaining an immigration benefit prevented him from establishing the required good moral character, the court granted summary judgment to the Government on Count II.

Count III: Misrepresentation During Naturalization

The court separately held that Drame obtained citizenship through willful misrepresentation and concealment of material facts during the naturalization process. The court relied on his signed naturalization applications and his admissions that he had falsely stated that he had not used other names, given false information in prior immigration matters, lied to obtain entry, or applied for relief from deportation.

The court found that these statements were willful because Drame signed and certified the applications under penalty of perjury and repeated the same information during his naturalization interview, despite having an opportunity to correct it. The court found the statements material because they concerned his prior immigration history and his eligibility for citizenship. It also found a causal connection between the concealment and his successful naturalization. The court therefore granted summary judgment to the Government on Count III.

Defenses

The court rejected Drame’s defense based on laches, which concerns unreasonable delay that prejudices the opposing party. The court held that Drame offered no evidence of either a lack of diligence by the Government or prejudice to himself. The court also stated that it lacked equitable discretion to refrain from entering a denaturalization judgment when citizenship was illegally obtained or obtained through willful misrepresentation of material facts.

The court rejected Drame’s reliance-on-counsel defense. Assuming that such a defense could apply in a citizenship-revocation case, the court found that Drame provided only conclusory statements and no evidence that he fully disclosed the facts, received advice that his conduct was lawful, or acted in good faith. The court found instead that his admissions showed he deliberately chose false answers to avoid returning to Guinea.

The court also rejected the duress or coercion defense. It found that the defense, as pleaded, concerned only earlier applications and did not address the later false statements in the permanent-residence and naturalization processes. In any event, Drame provided no evidence of a specific threat of death or serious injury, or that he lacked a reasonable way to avoid the threatened harm without breaking the law. The court held that a generalized fear of returning to Guinea was insufficient.

Disposition

Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein granted the Government’s motion for summary judgment on all three counts. The court revoked Drame’s citizenship, set aside the order admitting him to citizenship, canceled Certificate of Naturalization No. 35166807 effective June 22, 2012, and restrained him from claiming benefits, privileges, or advantages of U.S. citizenship connected with that naturalization. The court ordered Drame to surrender his certificate and other evidence of citizenship to the Government’s counsel within ten days, canceled the scheduled oral argument, directed the Clerk to enter judgment for the Government, and terminated the pending motion.