Kaibanda v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Service

Background

Charles KM Kaibanda petitioned for review of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (USCIS) denial of his application for naturalization. USCIS concluded that Kaibanda lacked good moral character because he had given false testimony under oath during his August 31, 2015 naturalization interview.

In earlier immigration applications, Kaibanda stated that he had married Constance Lukowe on March 18, 2006. He made that representation in his asylum application, in an application seeking refugee or asylee status for Lukowe, and in his application to adjust his immigration status. In the application for Lukowe, he also submitted a marriage certificate reflecting a March 18, 2006 marriage. USCIS later determined that the certificate was fraudulent and that Kaibanda and Lukowe were not legally married until December 2010.

By December 2013, USCIS had notified Kaibanda that the certificate was fraudulent and that the marriage occurred after the date required for the benefit sought for Lukowe. In his July 2014 naturalization application, Kaibanda listed the marriage date as December 2010. During his August 31, 2015 naturalization interview, however, he affirmed a “no” answer to whether he had ever given a United States Government official false, fraudulent, or misleading information or documentation.

USCIS denied the naturalization application in February 2020. After Kaibanda requested a hearing, USCIS held one on June 15, 2020, and affirmed the denial in June 2021. Kaibanda then filed this petition for de novo review, meaning the district court could consider the administrative record and facts established in court rather than merely defer to USCIS’s decision. He represented himself in the district court.

Motion and Standard of Review

The Government moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), or alternatively for summary judgment under Rule 56. Because the parties submitted materials outside the pleadings, the Court considered whether Kaibanda had notice that the motion might be converted to summary judgment. The Court found that he had adequate notice because the Government expressly presented summary judgment as an alternative, provided the required notice, filed a statement of material facts, and Kaibanda submitted materials of his own.

The Court converted the motion to one for summary judgment. Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The Court found that no material facts remained disputed. It also considered Kaibanda’s filings with the latitude generally given to a person proceeding without a lawyer, but explained that unsupported assertions cannot defeat summary judgment.

Naturalization and False Testimony

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, an applicant must show that he has been and remains a person of good moral character during the required period. The statute disqualifies a person who, during that period, gives false testimony for the purpose of obtaining an immigration benefit. The court explained that “testimony” in this provision means oral statements made under oath. The statute does not require the Government to prove that the false statement was material to the naturalization decision.

The Court identified two questions: whether Kaibanda made a false oral statement under oath and whether he made it with the subjective intent to obtain naturalization. The Court answered both questions yes.

First, Kaibanda falsely affirmed during the 2015 interview that he had never given a Government official false, fraudulent, or misleading information or documentation. The Court found that he had previously provided false information about his marriage date and had submitted the fraudulent 2006 marriage certificate. The Court further found that, by the time of the interview, Kaibanda knew the certificate was fraudulent and knew that he had not legally married Lukowe until December 2010. The Court relied in part on USCIS’s 2013 notice and Kaibanda’s later listing of the December 2010 marriage date.

Second, the Court found that Kaibanda intended to obtain naturalization when he made the false statement. The interview was conducted so USCIS could evaluate his naturalization application, and the Court concluded that knowingly denying prior false submissions in that setting showed an intent to obtain the citizenship benefit.

Kaibanda’s Arguments

Kaibanda argued that discrepancies in his earlier applications about his children and their birthdates were typographical errors. The Court did not decide whether those discrepancies were typographical errors because the false statement about previously submitting false information or documentation independently established his lack of good moral character.

Kaibanda also argued that he believed his 2006 church marriage was legally valid when he made the earlier submissions. The Court held that this did not answer the relevant question: whether he knew by the 2015 naturalization interview that he had previously submitted false information or fraudulent documentation. The Court also rejected his argument that USCIS’s decision to allow Lukowe and his children to remain in the United States showed that he had not committed fraud. The Court stated that those circumstances did not change the evidence concerning his prior submissions and his later sworn denial.

The Court likewise did not decide whether Kaibanda’s testimony at the 2020 hearing supplied an independent basis for denying the petition. The Government relied on the 2015 interview, and the Court found that testimony sufficient.

Disposition

The Court held that Kaibanda gave false testimony under oath to try to obtain United States citizenship. As a result, he lacked good moral character and was statutorily ineligible for naturalization within the relevant five-year period. Judge John P. Cronan granted the Government’s motion for summary judgment and denied Kaibanda’s petition for review. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.