United States v. Fernando Arango
686 F. App'x 489
9th Cir.2017Background
- Fernando Arango's U.S. citizenship was revoked under 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a) based on a sham marriage and alleged fraud in his naturalization application.
- The government initiated denaturalization proceedings after uncovering Arango's immigration history; Arango argued the government unduly delayed the suit.
- Arango claimed laches barred the action and that he had a Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial in the denaturalization proceeding.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's revocation of citizenship and rejected Arango's laches and jury-trial arguments.
- The panel assumed, without deciding, that laches could apply but held Arango failed to show the government's lack of diligence; the court also reiterated that denaturalization is civil and does not trigger a Sixth Amendment jury right.
- A concurring judge urged the court to decide the threshold question whether laches is a permissible defense against the United States in denaturalization actions, advocating adoption of the Sixth Circuit's contrary view.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether laches bars denaturalization | Arango: government delayed unduly, so laches should bar the suit | Government: any delay was reasonable and caused in part by Arango's own fraud; no time limit on denaturalization | Court assumed laches might apply but held Arango failed to prove government lacked diligence; laches defense fails on the facts |
| Whether denaturalization entitles defendant to a jury trial | Arango: Sixth Amendment jury right applies | Government: denaturalization is civil, not criminal, so no jury right | Denial — denaturalization is civil; no Sixth Amendment jury right |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Dang, 488 F.3d 1135 (9th Cir. 2007) (noting it is an open question in the circuit whether laches is a defense in denaturalization and assuming arguendo it is)
- United States v. Mandycz, 447 F.3d 951 (6th Cir. 2006) (holding laches is not a permissible defense to denaturalization by the United States)
- Costello v. United States, 365 U.S. 265 (1961) (setting elements of laches: lack of diligence and prejudice)
- United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506 (1995) (denaturalization is civil and does not trigger Sixth Amendment jury right)
- Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012) (government has broad discretion in immigration enforcement priorities)
- Evergreen Safety Council v. RSA Network Inc., 697 F.3d 1221 (9th Cir. 2012) (noting standards of review issues and procedural posture considerations)