815 F.3d 639
9th Cir.2016Background
- Zhou emigrated from China in 1985, applied for naturalization in 1993, updated Form N-400 via Form 445-A on March 22, 1994, and took the oath on March 31, 1994.
- On March 8–9, 1994, Zhou committed acts (seizing, threatening, stealing from a business partner) that led to charges of robbery, kidnapping, and extortion.
- Zhou was arrested in June 1994; after a first deadlocked jury, a second jury convicted him (Nov. 21, 1994) of First Degree Robbery (Cal. Penal Code § 211) and False Imprisonment with Violence; he received multi-year sentences.
- Nearly 20 years later the government filed to revoke Zhou’s naturalization under 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a), arguing Zhou lacked good moral character during the five-year statutory period preceding his application (8 U.S.C. § 1427(a)) because he committed unlawful acts during that period.
- The district court granted judgment on the pleadings for the government under the ‘‘catch‑all’’ provision 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f) as implemented by 8 C.F.R. § 316.10(b)(3)(iii), holding the robbery was an unlawful act that adversely reflected on Zhou’s moral character and that no extenuating circumstances applied.
- Zhou appealed, arguing (inter alia) that extenuating circumstances applied and that the government needed to prove he knew his conduct was criminal when he completed Form 445‑A; the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether unlawful acts committed during the statutory period (even if conviction occurred after naturalization) can defeat a finding of good moral character under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)/8 C.F.R. § 316.10(b)(3)(iii) | Zhou: conviction after oath means conduct should not negate good moral character | Government: commission of crime during statutory period suffices to show lack of good moral character even if conviction came later | Held for government: conduct committed during statutory period supports denaturalization; conviction timing after oath is not dispositive (affirmed) |
| Whether First Degree Robbery is an unlawful act that adversely reflects on moral character | Zhou: tried to minimize offense as business dispute, noted hung jury and clean record | Government: robbery is a crime involving moral turpitude and reflects adversely on character | Held for government: robbery is such an unlawful act; jury conviction binds civil proceeding |
| Whether ‘‘extenuating circumstances’’ excuse applies (8 C.F.R. § 316.10(b)(3)(iii)) | Zhou: facts (business dispute, lack of other convictions) create extenuating circumstances | Government: extenuating-circumstances exception is narrow and must palliate or lessen guilt during statutory period; none shown | Held for government: no extenuating circumstances in record; exception inapplicable |
| Whether government must prove Zhou knew his conduct was criminal when he updated Form 445‑A | Zhou: he lacked knowledge that his acts were crimes, so any false answer was inadvertent | Government: scienter is relevant only to willful misrepresentation theory, not to illegal-procurement theory | Held for government: knowledge of illegality at naturalization not required to show naturalization was illegally procured due to failure to meet statutory good‑moral‑character requirement |
Key Cases Cited
- Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118 (naturalized citizenship should not be revoked without the clearest justification)
- Fedorenko v. United States, 449 U.S. 490 (government’s heavy burden in denaturalization; entry of judgment required if statutory requirements unmet)
- Costello v. United States, 365 U.S. 265 (laches in denaturalization context left open)
- United States v. Dang, 488 F.3d 1135 (9th Cir.) (acts committed before oath but convicted after can defeat good moral character)
- United States v. Jean-Baptiste, 395 F.3d 1190 (11th Cir.) (crime committed during statutory period supports denaturalization even if conviction after naturalization)
- United States v. Suarez, 664 F.3d 655 (7th Cir.) (extenuating‑circumstances exception is narrow; conviction not required if offense was committed during statutory period)
- Mendoza v. Holder, 623 F.3d 1299 (9th Cir.) (First Degree Robbery is a crime involving moral turpitude)