United States v. George Cornejo
679 F. App'x 361
5th Cir.2017Background
- George Cornejo naturalized in September 1996 after an interview in June 1996 where he denied knowingly committing any crime for which he had not been arrested.
- On March 20, 1996, Cornejo committed drug offenses in Kansas; he was charged after the interview and pleaded guilty in early 1997 to offenses including possession with intent to sell.
- Nearly two decades later the government sued to revoke his citizenship under 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a) for illegal procurement or willful misrepresentation/concealment; Cornejo was served but did not timely appear on counsel’s advice.
- The district court granted the government’s motion for summary judgment and revoked Cornejo’s citizenship; Cornejo then retained new counsel and moved to reopen under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) for excusable neglect.
- The district court denied the Rule 60(b) motion after a hearing; Cornejo appealed both the denial of relief and the underlying summary judgment.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding (among other things) that Cornejo’s drug conviction during the statutory period rendered the omitted fact material and that his Rule 60(b) claim failed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether excusable neglect justified reopening under Rule 60(b)(1) | Cornejo: counsel advised no viable defense; that advice excused his failure to appear | Govt: attorney negligence generally does not establish excusable neglect; case was decided on summary judgment, not default | Denied — district court did not abuse discretion; attorney negligence insufficient and affidavit not considered |
| Whether omitted criminal conduct was material to naturalization | Cornejo: his drug offenses were not crimes of moral turpitude and thus not material | Govt: conviction showed controlled-substance violation that negates good moral character irrespective of arrest/conviction timing | Affirmed — omission was material because statute bars applicants admitting controlled-substance violations during statutory period |
| Whether Cornejo willfully misrepresented/ concealed facts | Cornejo: misrepresentation not willful (raised lightly) | Govt: willfulness established or at least not adequately contested on appeal | Forfeited — issue not adequately raised; court did not reverse on this ground |
| Whether guilty plea precludes disputing commission of the offenses | Cornejo: attempted to contest facts underlying plea in later affidavit | Govt: guilty plea estops him from denying commission | Affirmed — plea estops Cornejo from disputing he committed the drug offenses |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Alumax Extrusions, Inc., 868 F.2d 1469 (5th Cir. 1989) (standard for reviewing denial of Rule 60(b) relief)
- Lavespere v. Niagara Mach. & Tool Works, Inc., 910 F.2d 167 (5th Cir. 1990) (attorney negligence generally not excusable neglect)
- Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069 (5th Cir. 1994) (abrogation on other grounds noted in Lavespere discussion)
- Bohlin Co. v. Banning Co., 6 F.3d 350 (5th Cir. 1993) (Rule 60(b) and attorney-fault principles)
- Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (1988) (elements for denaturalization: misrepresentation, willfulness, materiality, and causation)
- In re Grothues, 226 F.3d 334 (5th Cir. 2000) (guilty plea estoppel in immigration context)
- United States v. Scroggins, 599 F.3d 433 (5th Cir. 2010) (forfeiture of appellate issues not adequately briefed)
- Legate v. Livingston, 822 F.3d 207 (5th Cir. 2016) (same)