Gonzalez v. Secretary of Department of HomeLand Security
678 F.3d 254
3rd Cir.2012Background
- Gonzalez, a Panama-born, Spain-ccitizen, entered U.S. as a non-immigrant in 1998 and married Inez Otero in 2000; his conditional residence was adjusted in 2001; in 2004-08 he had a Form 1-751 interview where he stated he had no children; he later recognized YGP and AGP as his children and amended their birth certificates in 2005; in 2006 he filed a Form N-400 listing the two children as his own; USCIS denied on good moral character grounds for false testimony in the 1-751 interview; removal proceedings were initiated after a 2009 denial; the district court granted summary judgment to the government; on appeal, the court addressed jurisdiction, relief, and whether there was a genuine issue of material fact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court jurisdiction can review a naturalization denial during pending removal | Gonzalez argues §1421(c) permits de novo review on merits despite §1429 constraints | Government contends review is limited or barred by pending removal | Jurisdiction exists for merits review under §1421(c) despite §1429 constraints |
| Whether declaratory relief is appropriate under §1421(c) during removal proceedings | Gonzalez seeks declaratory relief to cure reviewability | Court should not grant declaratory relief or view it as necessary | Declaratory relief is appropriate to balance review rights and removal priority |
| Whether there is a genuine issue of material fact on Gonzalez's intent to lie in the 1-751 interview | Gonzalez asserts lack of admissible evidence of false testimony and subjective intent | Record shows undisputed evidence of intentional false testimony | No genuine issue of material fact; Gonzalez lied with intent to obtain immigration benefits |
| Whether the Clark declaration is admissible summary-judgment evidence | Clark declaration is hearsay and inadmissible | Clark declaration is non-hearsay and admissible to prove what was said at the interview | Clark declaration admissible as non-hearsay evidence for summary judgment |
| Whether the statutory definition of child governs Form 1-751 in this context | INA §1101(b)(1) definition should control if applied | Definition is statute-specific and not controlling for Form 1-751 interview context | INA definition not controlling; it does not negate the district court's finding of false testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Terzich, 256 F.2d 197 (3d Cir.1958) (jurisdiction over naturalization during pending removal)
- Apokarina v. Ashcroft, 93 F.App’x 469 (3d Cir.2004) (questioning continuing jurisdiction post-1990 amendments)
- De Lara Bellajaro v. Schiltgen, 378 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir.2004) (jurisdiction vs. scope of review when removal pending)
- Zayed v. United States, 368 F.3d 902 (6th Cir.2004) (district court review maintained; scope limited by removal priority)
- Ajlani v. Chertoff, 545 F.3d 229 (2d Cir.2008) (discretion in naturalization relief with removal pending)
- Gonzalez v. Napolitano, 684 F. Supp. 2d 555 (D.N.J.2010) (context of district court jurisdiction and relief (referenced))
- Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (Sup. Ct.1988) (false testimony requires subjective intent to obtain benefits)
- Zegrean v. Atty. Gen., 602 F.3d 273 (3d Cir.2010) (regulatory deference and review context)