816 F.3d 1012
8th Cir.2016Background
- Hamod (entered U.S. June 1999) arrived on an R-1 religious-worker visa tied to Al‑Amal School; visa prohibited changing employers without INS authorization.
- Hamod became active with the Islamic Cultural Community Center (ICCC) and the ICCC filed an I-360 petition to employ him on August 2, 2000; petition was granted December 8, 2000.
- Hamod and spouse adjusted to permanent-resident status in 2002 and applied for naturalization in 2007.
- On his naturalization application Hamod listed ICCC employment beginning 7/15/2000 and, in later sworn testimony and deposition, gave statements indicating he worked for ICCC earlier in 2000 (including April 2000) and left Al‑Amal after less than a year.
- USCIS denied the naturalization applications for lack of good moral character based on unauthorized employment; the district court, after de novo review, found Hamod began working for ICCC before authorization and denied naturalization for both Hamod and his dependent spouse.
Issues
| Issue | Hamod's Argument | USCIS/District Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hamod accepted unauthorized employment (thereby losing "lawfully admitted" status) by working for ICCC before authorization | Hamod contends he did not begin employment at ICCC until after authorization; earlier statements were mistakes | ICCC employment began prior to authorization (supported by Hamod’s application, interviews, deposition, and corroborating letters), violating visa terms | Court held Hamod accepted unauthorized employment before authorization and thus was not lawfully admitted for naturalization; petition denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Outdoor Cent., Inc. v. GreatLodge.com, Inc., 688 F.3d 938 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard of review for district court findings and legal conclusions on de novo review)
- Wright v. St. Vincent Health Sys., 730 F.3d 732 (8th Cir. 2013) (clear‑error standard and when to overturn factual findings)
- INS v. Pangilinan, 486 U.S. 875 (1988) (requirement of strict compliance with statutory mandates for immigration benefits)
- Fedorenko v. United States, 449 F.3d 490 (1981) (requirement that immigration applicants meet statutory conditions for relief)