383 F. Supp. 3d 1014
E.D. Cal.2019Background
- Christian Oribello Eguilos, a Philippines native, became a U.S. permanent resident in 2003, applied for naturalization in July 2013, and was naturalized on November 6, 2013.
- In his N-400 and at his USCIS oath/interview he answered under penalty of perjury that he had not committed a crime or offense for which he had not been arrested.
- Fourteen months later California charged Eguilos with multiple counts of sexual offenses against minors; he pled nolo contendere to four counts under Cal. Penal Code § 288(b)(1), was sentenced to 40 years, and required to register as a sex offender.
- The United States sued to denaturalize Eguilos under 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a), alleging: (Count One) he committed crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMT) during the statutory period; (Count Two) he committed other unlawful acts adverse to moral character under the catch‑all; (Count Three) he gave false testimony at his interview under § 1101(f)(6); and (Count Four) he procured naturalization by willful misrepresentation/concealment.
- The government moved to revoke citizenship; the court appointed the Federal Defender and Eguilos moved to dismiss.
- The court granted the motion in part: dismissed Count One (CIMT) but denied dismissal as to Counts Two, Three, and Four.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (U.S.) | Defendant's Argument (Eguilos) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether violation of Cal. Penal Code § 288(b)(1) is a CIMT under INA §101(f)(3) | §288(b)(1) is a CIMT committed during the statutory period, disqualifying good moral character | Dismiss because plea was nolo contendere (inadmissible to prove CIMT) and statute is not a CIMT | Dismissed Count One: government cannot rely on nolo plea under FRE 410 and §288(b)(1) is not categorically a CIMT under Ninth Circuit precedent |
| Whether pre‑naturalization sexual offenses justify denial of good moral character under catch‑all / 8 C.F.R. §316.10(b)(3)(iii) | Conduct during statutory period adversely reflects on moral character regardless of conviction timing; §316.10 permits such findings | Argues dismissal because the conviction is inadmissible nolo plea evidence | Denied: complaint plausibly alleges unlawful acts during the statutory period; inadmissibility of the plea is not a basis to dismiss at pleading stage |
| Whether false testimony at naturalization interview under §101(f)(6) is sufficiently pleaded (subjective intent) | Interview statements denying unarrested offenses were false and made to obtain immigration benefit; intent can be inferred | Argues lack of factual basis for subjective intent and reliance on nolo plea | Denied: complaint alleges circumstances permitting an inference defendant lied to protect his application; admissibility of plea not fatal at this stage |
| Whether defendant willfully misrepresented or concealed material facts procuring citizenship under §1451(a) | Alleged deliberate concealment of sexual abuse was material and had a natural tendency to influence USCIS decision, satisfying Kungys elements | Argues dismissal for reliance on nolo plea and challenges willfulness inference | Denied: complaint sufficiently alleges the four Kungys elements (misrepresentation, willfulness, materiality, procurement); willfulness and other factual issues reserved for later stages |
Key Cases Cited
- Fedorenko v. United States, 449 U.S. 490 (establishes government burden and clear, convincing standard for denaturalization)
- Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (sets four‑part test for misrepresentation/ concealment denaturalization claims and presumption framework)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (articulates categorical approach for comparing state statute elements to generic federal offense)
- Menendez v. Whitaker, 908 F.3d 467 (9th Cir.) (construed related §288(c)(1) and held it not categorically a CIMT—guiding analysis here)
- United States v. Nguyen, 465 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir.) (explains inadmissibility of nolo contendere plea under FRE 410 in certain contexts)
- United States v. Ginsberg, 243 U.S. 472 (naturalization rights conditional on strict compliance with statutory requirements)
- Ramos v. I.N.S., 246 F.3d 1264 (9th Cir.) (false‑testimony ground requires subjective intent to deceive)