United States v. Hsu
695 F. App'x 393
10th Cir.2017Background
- Benson Hsu, born in Taiwan, became a U.S. lawful permanent resident in 1989 and applied for naturalization in 1994; he took the oath in June 1995.
- In March 1993, Taiwanese authorities found a disassembled 9mm handgun and 40 rounds of ammunition concealed in Hsu’s luggage; Hsu gave inconsistent and deceptive explanations and was convicted in Taiwan of transporting a handgun without authorization and sentenced in absentia.
- In September 1994 Hsu was arrested in Texas on weapon-related charges; he pled guilty in October 1995 to unlawfully carrying a weapon (Tex. Penal Code §46.02(a)).
- Hsu’s 1994 naturalization application denied any arrests or convictions; he claims the INS interview was brief and does not recall being asked about his criminal history; INS approved the application and naturalization followed.
- In 2014 the Government sued to revoke Hsu’s naturalization, alleging illegally procured citizenship based on lack of good moral character (Taiwan conviction), false statements under oath, and concealment; the district court granted summary judgment revoking citizenship based on the Taiwan offense adversely reflecting on moral character.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hsu) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hsu lacked good moral character due to his Taiwanese firearm-transport conviction | Transporting an unloaded gun abroad is not inherently immoral; average Texan would view it as bad judgment not bad character; no intent and no risk to persons/property | Hsu willfully concealed and transported a firearm, lied to customs, and thus showed willful disregard for foreign law that adversely reflects on moral character | Court held Hsu’s conduct and deception admitted intent and adversely reflected on moral character; summary judgment for Government affirmed |
| Whether intent matters when evaluating moral character for this offense | Argues Taiwan statute lacks mens rea reference so intent is irrelevant | Government points to Taiwan High Court finding of intent and surrounding deceptive conduct | Court relied on Taiwan court’s intent finding and surrounding facts; intent established |
| Whether absence of harm to people or property negates adverse moral-character finding | Argues lack of harm creates extenuating circumstances | Government: lack of harm irrelevant to whether act reflects moral character | Court: lack of harm does not negate adverse reflection; Hsu’s perfunctory argument waived and insufficiently developed |
| Whether extenuating circumstances preclude denaturalization | Hsu asserts extenuating circumstances (e.g., no harm) | Government contends no extenuating circumstances shown | Court found no genuine dispute on extenuating circumstances; Hsu waived challenge by not objecting to magistrate’s finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Fedorenko v. United States, 449 U.S. 490 (1981) (government bears heavy, clear-and-convincing burden to revoke naturalization; illegally procured citizenship may be set aside)
- Martinez v. Beggs, 563 F.3d 1082 (10th Cir. 2009) (summary-judgment standard and de novo appellate review)
- Jean-Baptiste v. United States, 395 F.3d 1190 (11th Cir. 2005) (deference to 8 C.F.R. §316.10 in moral-character determinations)
- Flores-Molina v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1150 (10th Cir. 2017) (categorical approach for CIMT issues; not applied to moral-character inquiry)
- United States v. One Parcel of Real Prop., 73 F.3d 1057 (10th Cir. 1996) (failure to object to a magistrate’s recommendation results in waiver)
- United States v. Wooten, 377 F.3d 1134 (10th Cir. 2004) (issues raised perfunctorily and without developed argument are generally not considered)