United States v. Roger Nepal
894 F.3d 204
5th Cir.2018Background
- Roger Nepal, a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Nepal, pleaded guilty to unlawfully procuring naturalization in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1425(a) after admitting he lied on his N-400 and in his naturalization interview by denying he had children.
- The factual resume stated that truthful disclosure of his children would have led to discovery that he had not properly and completely provided financial support to his son, which could show lack of good moral character during the statutory period.
- At plea hearing Nepal acknowledged and did not object to the factual resume; the district court accepted his Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea, sentenced him, ordered restitution, and revoked his citizenship under 8 U.S.C. § 1451.
- While the appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided Maslenjak v. United States, clarifying § 1425(a) requires a causal link between the lie and acquisition of citizenship and holding that actual qualification for citizenship is a complete defense.
- Nepal argued Maslenjak changed the law so his plea lacked a sufficient factual basis and that he could invoke the Maslenjak affirmative defense; the Fifth Circuit reviewed for plain error and affirmed the conviction and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Maslenjak eliminated the factual basis for Nepal’s § 1425(a) plea | Maslenjak requires a causal showing not met by the indictment/factual resume, so plea lacks lawful factual basis | The indictment and factual resume satisfy Maslenjak’s investigatory theory: concealing children would prompt inquiry about support and predictably reveal disqualification | Held: Factual basis sufficient under Maslenjak; conviction stands |
| Whether Nepal may invoke Maslenjak’s defense that actual qualification is a complete defense | Nepal contends he qualified despite lies and thus is entitled to the defense | Government contends waiver and record preclude the defense; alternatively, even under Maslenjak record shows disqualification | Held: Nepal failed to show a reasonable probability he would have rejected the plea or prevailed; plain-error review fails |
| Standard of review for challenge to plea’s factual basis | Nepal urged de novo review | Court applied plain-error review because he did not object below | Held: Plain-error review applies; Nepal did not meet its requirements |
| Whether the non-availability of Maslenjak defense at plea acceptance was a structural error | Nepal argued Maslenjak created a new defense and its absence made plea acceptance structural error | Court: announcement of a new defense is not structural error and does not automatically undermine plea | Held: Not structural error; Nepal cannot show effect on substantial rights |
Key Cases Cited
- Maslenjak v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1918 (2017) (§ 1425(a) requires causal connection; qualification for citizenship is a complete defense)
- Vonn v. United States, 535 U.S. 55 (2002) (Rule 11 ensures guilty plea is knowing and voluntary)
- Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (1988) (investigatory theory: lies that would lead to discovery of disqualifying facts can establish causation)
- Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 (1987) (new rules of federal law apply retroactively to cases on direct review)
- Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897 (2018) (plain-error relief requires showing of clear or obvious error affecting substantial rights)
- United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) (example of a later decision altering legal landscape and affecting convictions)