United States v. Arango
670 F.3d 988
9th Cir.2012Background
- Arango, a Colombian-born naturalized U.S. citizen in 1989, was later charged by the government to revoke his citizenship.
- The complaint alleged citizenship was illegally procured due to a fraudulent marriage and that Arango misrepresented/concealed material facts during naturalization.
- Arango argued venue was improper in Arizona because he was imprisoned in California, but the district court held venue proper in Arizona.
- Arango submitted evidence of a cooperation agreement with the INS allegedly permitting him to retain LPR status and to naturalize in exchange for cooperation.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the government, weighing the evidence and concluding there were no genuine issues of material fact.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed on the coercive-venue issue and remanded for proper venue consideration, and also vacated aspects of the denial of summary judgment pending further fact-finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there a genuine issue of material fact on illegal procurement? | Arango asserts a cooperation agreement existed with INS. | Government contends no such agreement; evidence shows illicit procurement. | Summary judgment improper; material facts exist. |
| Was there a genuine issue on willful concealment or misrepresentation? | Arango's conduct not willful concealment; he reasonably believed INS knew the facts. | Arango willfully concealed or misrepresented the marriage during his application. | Issues of willfulness and materiality disputed; not resolved in favor of government at summary judgment. |
| Is venue proper under INA § 340 when the defendant is incarcerated? | Arizona should be proper based on last residence and domicile notions. | Residence is governed by INA definition; incarceration can alter place of residence. | Venue ruled improper; remanded to determine Arango's principal dwelling under the INA. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Dang, 488 F.3d 1135 (9th Cir. 2007) (heavy burden of clear, unequivocal, convincing evidence for denaturalization)
- Fedorenko v. United States, 449 U.S. 490 (U.S. 1981) (illegally procured citizenship standards and willful misrepresentation standards)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard; credibility not decided at summary judgment)
- Savorgnan v. United States, 338 U.S. 491 (U.S. 1950) (test of residence; lack of intent irrelevant to residence inquiry)
- Stacher v. United States, 258 F.2d 112 (9th Cir. 1958) (distinction between domicile and residence; factors for place of residency)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Cayetano, 224 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2000) (conflicting affidavits; summary judgment considerations in mixed evidence)
- Cohen v. United States, 297 F.2d 760 (9th Cir. 1962) (addressing residency concepts in related contexts)
- Stabler v. United States, 169 F.2d 995 (3d Cir. 1948) (imprisonment and residence under older venue considerations)
- Michael v. INS, 48 F.3d 657 (2d Cir. 1995) (residence concepts in immigration context; established abode analysis)