Saleh v. Jaddou
- P. Castel
- 1:21-cv-10240
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 20
In Saleh v. Jaddou, Judge Castel denied Saleh’s motion, granted respondents’ motion, and dismissed his naturalization claims.
Ammar Abdo Saeed Saleh and the respondent government officials responsible for administering and enforcing the immigration laws.
What happened
In Saleh v. Jaddou, Ammar Abdo Saeed Saleh asked the court to review the denial of his naturalization application. The government had found that he lacked good moral character and had not been lawfully admitted as a permanent resident. Both sides asked for judgment without a trial.
The court concluded that Saleh had given false statements under oath during earlier immigration applications and interviews, including statements about his marriages, children, and marital status. The court found that these statements were made to obtain immigration benefits and legally prevented him from proving the good moral character required for naturalization.
Judge Castel denied Saleh’s motion for summary judgment and granted the respondents’ motion for summary judgment. The court dismissed Saleh’s naturalization-review claim and dismissed his separate Administrative Procedure Act claim because the naturalization-review process already provided an adequate remedy. The court directed the Clerk to enter judgment for the respondents and close the case.
The detailed version
- Saleh v. Jaddou · No. 1:21-cv-10240
- P. Castel
- Sept. 1, 2023
Background
Ammar Abdo Saeed Saleh petitioned under section 1421(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act for judicial review of the denial of his application for naturalization. He also asserted a claim under the Administrative Procedure Act. Saleh and the respondent government officials each moved for summary judgment, which asks whether the record shows that no reasonable factfinder could rule for the opposing party.
USCIS denied Saleh’s 2016 naturalization application after finding that he had given false testimony under oath with the intent to obtain an immigration benefit and had not shown that he was lawfully admitted for permanent residence. The administrative record described repeated inconsistencies and omissions concerning his marriages and children. Among other things, Saleh did not disclose his marriage to Al Shraei on earlier immigration applications, gave conflicting information about his marriage to Abdo, and stated in his 2012 naturalization application that he was married to and living with Garcia even though a divorce judgment had been issued shortly before he filed that application.
Legal framework
For naturalization, an applicant must prove eligibility, including lawful admission for permanent residence and good moral character during the required period. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(6), a person cannot be found to have good moral character if, during the relevant period, the person gives false testimony under oath for the purpose of obtaining an immigration benefit. The court explained that “testimony” means oral statements made under oath. The false statement need not be material, although the court also found that Saleh’s statements and omissions would have been important to an immigration decisionmaker.
Under section 1421(c), the district court conducts de novo review, meaning it makes its own factual and legal determinations rather than deferring to USCIS. Saleh did not request a new hearing and submitted no evidence outside the administrative record. The court therefore considered the certified administrative record and declarations from immigration officials.
Court’s analysis
The court held that no reasonable factfinder could conclude that Saleh had proved good moral character. During his 2013 interview on his 2012 naturalization application, Saleh affirmed under oath that he had been married three times, rather than four. The court rejected his explanation that the omitted marriage was only religious and not legally valid because he provided no evidence supporting that claim under Yemeni law and had treated similar Yemeni marriage records as legally relevant elsewhere.
The court identified additional false testimony. Saleh answered “No” when asked whether he had ever given false or misleading information to a U.S. government official, even though his applications contained inconsistent statements about the number of his children. The court also found that his sworn statements that he was married to and living with Garcia were at least intentionally and highly misleading, given the divorce judgment issued three days before he filed the 2012 application.
The court rejected Saleh’s arguments that the statements were immaterial, were made for benign reasons, or were corrected by his later disclosure of information during the 2021 administrative appeal. It concluded that the record showed the statements were made during and in furtherance of his efforts to obtain naturalization. Because the court resolved the case on the good-moral-character ground, it did not decide the respondents’ alternative argument that Saleh was not lawfully admitted for permanent residence.
Disposition
The court denied Saleh’s motion for summary judgment and granted respondents’ cross-motion for summary judgment. It dismissed the section 1421(c) claim. It also dismissed the Administrative Procedure Act claim because section 1421(c) supplied an adequate remedy and the separate claim would improperly duplicate that review. The Clerk was directed to enter final judgment for respondents and close the case.
Read the full 20-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.