United States v. Rakesh Hirani
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 9783
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- Appellant (born Rakeshkumar Vasantlal Patel, 1972) entered U.S. 1991 and used both Rakeshkumar Patel and the family name Rakesh Hirani; he never legally changed his name.
- Appellant’s 1991 asylum claim was denied; a 1995 deportation order was entered in absentia and a warrant issued in 1996; Appellant left the U.S. in 1997 on counsel’s advice.
- In 1998 his wife filed for permanent residency using the name Rakesh Hirani and a falsified 1968 birth year; INS approved and Appellant admitted as a lawful permanent resident in 2000.
- Appellant filed Form N-400 in 2003 using the name Rakesh Hirani and birth year 1968, signed under penalty of perjury answers stating he had never used another name, never given false information, and never been deported; USCIS naturalized him in 2003.
- United States sued in 2014 to revoke naturalization under 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a) for illegal procurement or procurement by material misrepresentation/concealment; district court granted summary judgment for the government; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether circumstantial evidence may satisfy the high denaturalization standard | Hirani: Circumstantial evidence cannot meet the “clear, unequivocal, and convincing” requirement | U.S.: Circumstantial evidence is as probative as direct evidence and may satisfy the standard | Court: Circumstantial evidence may satisfy the denaturalization standard; district court correctly considered it |
| Whether prior use of other names outside naturalization may be considered | Hirani: Prior name usage unrelated to the 2003 naturalization should not be considered under Kungys | U.S.: Prior name usage is relevant to whether Hirani’s statements on N-400 (that his only name was Rakesh Hirani) were truthful | Court: Prior use of other names is admissible to test truthfulness of statements made on Form N-400; district court properly considered it |
| Whether material misrepresentations procured naturalization (procurement requirement) | Hirani: No causal nexus; contesting sufficiency and factual disputes about who prepared the N-400 | U.S.: Misrepresentations concealed statutory ineligibility (ten-year bar after removal), so they procured naturalization | Court: Applying Kungys (Marks/ Brennan controlling), material misrepresentation gave rise to fair inference of ineligibility; government met procurement showing because Appellant was barred from admission under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(A)(ii) and thus ineligible to naturalize |
| Whether Appellant may collaterally challenge the 1995 deportation order here | Hirani: Deportation order invalid for lack of notice; thus no ten-year bar | U.S.: Collateral attack barred—administrative remedies exist and Appellant failed to seek reopening | Court: Collateral attack barred; Appellant did not exhaust administrative remedies or show he was functionally deprived of review, and he could have moved to reopen under § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii) |
Key Cases Cited
- Fedorenko v. United States, 449 U.S. 490 (denaturalization requires clear, unequivocal, and convincing proof)
- Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (misrepresentation, materiality, and procurement framework for denaturalization)
- Klapprott v. United States, 335 U.S. 601 (denaturalization burden analogous to criminal proof beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90 (circumstantial evidence can be as probative as direct evidence)
- Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 (controlling opinion in fragmented Court is the narrowest grounds joining the judgments)
- Latchin v. United States, 554 F.3d 709 (discussion of procurement/connective nexus and application of Kungys)