Anthony Kariuki v. Tracy Tarango, 709 F.3d 495

Kariuki entered the U.S. on a six-month visitor visa in 1998 and overstayed, with repeated misrepresentations of his immigration status.
He enlisted in the Army using a false permanent-residency stamp; discharged for fraudulent enlistment.
In 2001 he pleaded guilty to falsely stating citizenship on an I-9 form and altered his Social Security card; he later admitted awareness of fraud.
He applied for naturalization in 2004 under a veterans-eligibility provision; USCIS denied in 2009 for lack of good moral character.
The district court granted summary judgment against Kariuki, relying on prior misrepresentations and sworn statements inconsistent with his prior conviction.
On appeal, Kariuki challenged the use of FRCP 56, the consideration of pre-filing conduct, present-affidavit evidence, and collateral estoppel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether hearing de novo under § 1421(c) requires an evidentiary hearing	Kariuki: de novo hearing implies full evidentiary proceeding	Appellees: de novo encompasses FRCP 56 review	De novo hearing includes FRCP 56 summary-judgment review
Whether the district court may consider pre-filing conduct beyond one year	Kariuki: improper to consider conduct outside the one-year limit	Appellees: allowed to consider earlier conduct if relevant to present character	Prior conduct can be considered if relevant to present moral character
Whether present-affidavit evidence can create a genuine issue of material fact	Kariuki: affidavits show present good character to rebut prior conduct	Affidavits are self-serving and insufficient against probative prior conduct	Conclusory affidavits cannot defeat summary judgment when contradicted by probative evidence
Whether collateral estoppel applies to Kariuki's naturalization testimony	Kariuki argued estoppel not applicable; testimony should be allowed anew	Estoppel precludes relitigation of the central premise of his prior conviction	Collateral estoppel applies; Kariuki cannot relitigate the false-citizenship premise
Whether collateral estoppel was waived as an affirmative defense	Kariuki: estoppel was not pled; defenses waived	Waiver not proper where good-faith exception applies and no prejudice	Rule 8(c) waiver did not bar estoppel; good-faith exception applies; estoppel valid

Chan v. Gantner, 464 F.3d 289 (2d Cir. 2006) (First-impression on de novo hearing scope in § 1421(c))
Aparicio v. Blakeway, 302 F.3d 437 (5th Cir. 2002) (de novo qualifier limits to standard of review)
Abela v. Gustafson, 888 F.2d 1258 (9th Cir. 1989) (naturalization proceedings are civil actions and subject to FRCP)
Tutun v. United States, 270 U.S. 568 (1926) (historical basis for naturalization proceedings as judicial process)
Fedorenko v. United States, 449 U.S. 490 (1981) (strict compliance with statutory conditions precedent to naturalization)
Hovsepian v. United States, 422 F.3d 883 (9th Cir. 2005) (may consider conduct before and during statutory period for moral character)
Lopez v. Henley, 416 F.3d 455 (5th Cir. 2005) (one-year good-moral-character period; broader review allowed)
United States v. Florida East Coast Railway Co., 410 U.S. 224 (1973) (contextual meaning of ‘hearing’ in statutory schemes)
Tannehill v. United States, 49 F.3d 1049 (5th Cir. 1995) (consider context and ordinary meaning of ‘hearing’)
Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (1988) (false testimony and moral character considerations in naturalization)
Shaikh v. Holder, 588 F.3d 861 (5th Cir. 2009) (collateral estoppel and de novo review in naturalization)