*1 v. UNITED KUNGYS STATES Arguеd April No. Reargued 86-228. October 1987— May 2, Decided *4 J., judgment of and announced the the Court Scalia, delivered opin- I, II-A, III-A, respect ion of the Parts and in Court with which Rehn- J., JJ., joined, quist, Brennan, White, O’Connor, C. and and and an III-B, II-B in opinion respect with and which Rehnquist, J., to Parts C. (as only) O’Connor, JJ., joined. and Brennan III-B and to Part Bren- nan, J., concurring opinion, post, p. filed a J., 783. Stevens, filed an opinion concurring judgment, in in which and Blackmun, Marshall JJ., joined, O’Connor, J., post, p. opinion 784. filed an concurring part
763 White, J., post, part, p. dissenting dissenting opinion, and 801. filed a Kennedy, J., post, p. part 801. took no in the consideration or decision of the case. reargued petitioner.
Donald J. Williamson the cause for himWith on the briefs were Michael F. Rehill and Ivars Berzins. reargued
Robert H. the cause for the United Klonoff him States. With on the were briefs Solicitor General Attorney Deputy Fried, Weld, Assistant General Solicitor Bryson, Rosenthal, General Samuel Michael and Jo Wolf, seph Lynch.* F. judgment announced the of the Court and Justice Scalia opinion
delivered the of the I, Court as to Parts II-A, and opinion III-A, and an as to II-B III-B, Parts and which joined and Justice and in The Chief Justice Brennan joined. Part III-B of which Justice O’Connor Kungys judgment opinion Juozas seeks our review of a and remanding completion of the Third Circuit his case proceedings. presented denaturalization The issues are: certain first, whether or concealments by Kungys pro- made connection with his naturalization ceeding meaning Immigra- material were within the 340(a), Nationality tion and Act of Stat. § 1451(a), amended, U. S. C. and Chaunt v. (1960); misrepresen- second, U. S. and whether those forged under
tations, made oath and the form of documents, Kungys’ citizenship “illegally procured” rendered under 8 §§ 1101(f)(6), 1427(a)(3), 1451(a), they U. S. C. because Jr., Hemsley, and Frank A. Campbell *William S. S. filed a brief et al. as amici curiae urging Compact for the Baltic-Ukranian-American reversal. amici curiae urging Briefs of affirmance were filed for the Anti-Defama- Teitel, Finger, Ruti Jeffrey Justin J. League
tion of B’nai B’rith et al. Tenev; P. Sinensky, and Jovi Eli Congress by and for the World Jewish M. Robert Rosenbaum Lande. H.. *5 requisite good he lacked the moral
established that character years ago. when he was naturalized 34
I applied immigration Stuttgart, in Petitioner for an visa Germany, in In 1948, issued, 1947. the visa was and he came to the he in States; United was naturalized a citizen 1954. acting through Spe- In United the Officeof Investigations Department cial Justice, of the filed a com- 1451(a) plaint pursuant to 8 U. S. C. to denaturalize him.1 grounds. States First, United advanced three it at- tempted Kungys participated executing in to show that had 2,000 civilians, over Lithuanian most of Jewish, them in July August Kedainiai, Lithuania, between and 1941. As proof claim, of this States in offered evidence videotaped depositions three for taken use in this case in the determining Soviet Union. After that for numerous reasons depositions inherently the Soviet-source were unreliable, the only purpose District Court admitted them for the limited showing actually that the atrocities occurred. The District Court then held that the admissible evidence was insufficient charges Kungys participated to sustain the had in the Kedainiai atrocities. attempted ap-
Second, the United States that, show plying petition, Kungys visa for his and his naturalization respect place had made false statements with to his date occupations, birth, wartime and wartime residence. The 1451(a) provides pertinent part: Section “(a) duty It shall be the attorneys respective United States for districts, upon showing good therefor, affidavit cause proceed- to institute (a) ings any specified court subsection section 1421 this title in judicial district in which the may naturalized citizen reside the time of bringing suit, revoking and setting aside the order ad- mitting person canceling such the certificate of natural- ground ization on such order and certificate of naturalization were illegally procured procured or were concealment of a material fact or willful . . . .”
765 found that these had been District Court material within them not to be meaning held made but Chaunt v. illuminated 1451(a), by language § C. 8 U. S. States, supra. that argued Kungys’ the United States Third, 1451(a) § under because when “illegally procured” had been moral character re- he lacked the good he was naturalized 1427(a).2 § 8 U. S. C. citizenship by for applicants quired the United States asserted theory, In of this support material, or not were whether false Kungys’ representations, false to obtain testimony that he had given sufficient to show which benefits, 8 U. S. C. or naturalization immigration 1101(f)(6) of lack of moral charac- good determinative makes the false statements at District Court ruled ter.3 1101(f)(6) 8 U. C. because not covered S. issue were not material. were they
2 1427(a)provides: Section subehapter, provided in this shall be natu- person, except as otherwise “No (1) immediately preceding filing the date of petitioner, ralized unless such continuously, being lawfully after has resided petition his for naturalization residence, at within the United States for least permanent for admitted immediately preceding fil- years the date of years during the five five periods totaling physically present therein for petition has been ing his time, has resided within the State which the and who least half of (2) months, six has resided continu- petition for at least petitioner filed petition up to the time from the date of the ously within the United States (3) period citizenship, during all the referred to this of admission to character, good person is a moral attached has been and still subsection disposed and well the Constitution of United principles to the happiness of the United States.” good order and to the 1101(f)(6) pertinent part: provides Section “(f) chapter— purposes of this For the be, as, person good moral or found to person regarded
No shall good moral character is who, during period for which character — established, is, or was required to be any (6) testimony obtaining for given has false one who chapter.” this benefits under
Having
each of the
rejected
three asserted grounds for
denaturalization,
the District Court entered judgment
(NJ 1983).
Kungys.
F.
Supp.
The United States
aрpealed. The Third Circuit declined to
on
pass
the United
States’ submission that
the first asserted ground (partici-
pation
atrocities)
the Kedainiai
was wrongfully rejected
because of error in
to admit
failing
unqualifiedly
Soviet-
source depositions.
It reversed,
however,
the District
*7
Court’s
rejection
the second ground,
concluding
Kungys’ willful misrepresentation
of the date and place of his
birth in connection with his applications for visa and natural-
(which
ization
was no longer disputed), was material for pur-
poses
“concealment or misrepresentation”
provision of
1451(a).
§
Finally,
the Third Circuit upheld the District
Court’s
rejection
the third asserted ground for denatural-
ization
agreeing that
order to establish “illegal procure-
1451(a)
§
ment” under
on account of lack of good moral char-
§
under
1101(f)(6), false testimony
acter
must be shown to
(1986).
have been material.
moral §§ character 1451(a), under 8 U. 1427(a), S. C. 1101(f)(6), with particular attention to: “‘(a) whether testimony” provision 1101(f)(6) “false of 8 U. S. C. interpreted should be requirement include a testimony false fact; concern a material
II A 1451(a) above, As noted 8 U. C. for the provides S. of citizens denaturalization whose orders and cer tificates of naturalization “were concealment of a procured by material fact or by willful . . . This misrepresentation Court has and the do not previously suggested, parties this or conceal dispute, requires misrepresentations ments that are both willful and material. Fedorenko See v. (1981). 449 U. n. 28 507-508, S. So understood, contains four provision plainly independent the naturalized citizen must have requirements: misrepre fact, sented or concealed some or con misrepresentation willful, cealment must been the fact must have been material, and the naturalized citizen must have citi procured as a result of the or concealment. zenship It is no that the first two of these longer dispute require here, ments were met since now concedes that he petitioner the date and of his birth his willfully misrepresented place in 1954 naturalization as well as for his proceeding applying *8 in 1947.5 visa “ ‘(b) govern what standards should the determination under 8 U. S. C. 1101(f)(6)
§ testimony” given purpose whether “false has been “for the any chapter ....”; obtaining benefits under this and “ ‘(e) whether the latter determination is one of law or fact.
“ ‘(2)(a) materiality in Should the standard articulated Chaunt v. United States, (1960), and, so, 364 S. 350 be abandoned if what standard should U. materiality 1451(a); § govern inquiry 8 under U. S. C. and “‘(b) 1451(a) materiality § is the determination of under 8 U. one S. C. of law or fact. “‘(3) misrepresentation has been established as “material” When 1451(a), any § meaning showing of 8 U. S. C. must further within be “procured by” citizenship misrepresenta- to establish that was made 483 1017. tion.’” U. S. 5 asserted that the of the Government Kedainiai, occurred, Kungys was to distance from where atrocities had and identify perpetrators. difficult to him as one of the to make it more Kungys greater city contended that even atrocities had occurred he re- to consider the last two had occasion has
This Court only In v. United Chaunt quirements twice. (1960), citizen who had that a naturalized we held
U. S. process during falsely willfully the naturalization stated and nevertheless not be arrested could never been had that he year pursuant A in Costello later, 1451. denaturalized (1961), held that a natural- we States, 365 U. S. v. United during willfully falsely and stated had who citizen ized occupation process estate,” “real that his was naturalization accurately have been described as more fact it would when pursuant In “bootlegging,” tо 1451. could be denaturalized purport opinion announce a case did Court’s neither guide judicial whether a the determination test to conclusive “material” and given concealment was or “procured” Indeed, certificate. a naturalization whether clearly opinion between differentiate case did the in neither separate requirements. it has been Nevertheless, two these thought materiality profitably derived can a test for language language at That comes Chaunt. from certain summarizing opinion, its Court, where end the holding, has failed to show that “the Government states (1) convincing’ unequivocal, that' evidence either ‘clear, suppressed if have war- which, known, would were facts (2) might disclosure or that their ranted denial leading investigation possibly to the in an useful have been (two years) age that the difference birthplace; his falsely listed as purposes. Kungys asserted that he consequence identification of little identity obtaining docu- concerning place of birth his date and lied had Germany purpose of the go Lithuania to Nazis to from ments from the —the age conscription being place him above the dissembling that time participation in the Lithuanian persecution for his the risk of and to avoid Yidiekunas, a leader of the (Vydaudas *9 movement. resistance Resistance Kungys participation.) as- Kungys’ account of his validated movement repeated simply he the information con- applying for his visa that in serted documents, inconsequential for identity believing the falsities tained on his that with similar belief he con- purposes; and immigration United States application. visa petition to his his naturalization formed
769 citizenship.” warranting discovery denial of of other facts to make this formulation 364 U. at 355. The efforts S., materiality success. Not have not met with notable test for single Appeals only to at failed arrive the Courts of have interpretation (compare F. 337 2d 986 Riela, v. United States (CA9 (CA3 1964), F. 2d 650 Rossi, and United States v. 299 (CA6 1966), 1962), 2d INS, Kassab v. 364 F. 806 with (CA1 1961)), Langhammer 642 but Hamilton, v. 295 F. 2d attempt dispel 449 Fedorenko, confusion, to their see our one judgment), concurring 4 in S., J., n. U. at (Blackmun, ^produced seemingly Court, this see at least three variants'on concurring in J., id., 508-509; at 523-526 id., (Blackmun, dissenting); judgment); id., at J., id., at 528-530 (White, dissenting). J., 536-538 (Stevens, experience, we now conclude With the wisdom of attempts from the dicta to construct a standard Chaunt unnecessary The term “mate- and unfortunate. been both 1451(a) hapax legomenon. in the in Its use rial” is not goes public far to officials back as context of false statements perjury as follows: Coke, the crime as Lord who defined “Perjury is a lawful oath committed, is when a crime authority, any person, by any hath ministred absolutely, proceeding, any judicial sweareth who ques- falsly cause in issue, material to the or a matter or the subornation of others.” act, their tion, own 1680). (6th ed. Coke, 3 E. Institutes writing in order term, used the same Blackstone corrupt perjury” false of wilful and constitute “the crime question point material to statement “must be some trifling dispute; only circum collateral if it some punishable. regard paid,” it is not to which no stance, Haw W. *137. See also W. Blackstone, Commentaries (Curwood p. ed. § 8, kins, Crown, ch. Pleas 1824). unsurpris it is antecedents, Given these common-law criminalizing ing false state federal statutes that a number of public The most ments term “material.” use the officials *10 770
prominent
§
perhaps
of these is
18
1001,
U. S. C.
which
any
makes unlawful willful concealment of material facts in
jurisdiction
department
agency
matter within the
of a
or
long displayed
the United States. The federal
courts
a
quite
understanding
“materiality” concept
uniform
of the
g.,
See,
embodied
such statutes.
e.
Gonzales v. United
(CA10) (construing
F.
122
States,
118,
286
2d
18 U. C.S.
1001), cert.
(1961);
denied,
One meaning “material,” established but as tion of the precise attempt *11 test for what constitutes to craft a more tendency influence” a naturalization decision. “a natural to precision Surely, in the however, there is no less need for than in the denaturalization context. The criminal context general preferable there, as we think it is more formulation is judgment question does not lend itself to here, because disagreement resolution. The between the Dis- mechanical Appeals in Fedorenko turned on trict Court and Court required had the truth been that, the Chaunt test whether investigation would would resulted which have told, an have disqualifying investigation facts, or rather that an disclosed might disqualifying have disclosed would have resulted which dissenting). supra, Fedorenko, at facts. (White, J., tendency question is “natural to influ- if the ultimate But seem to make little difference whether the ence,” it would resulting investigation probabilities re- disclosure, spectively, are or even 100%-20%, 20%-100%, 51%-51%, materiality It has never been the test of that the 30%-30%. likely misrepresentation more than not or concealment would produced decision, an or even that it would have erroneous triggered investigation. likely Thus, not an than more may adеquate explana- formulation while the Chaunt misrepresentation judged why in that case was not tion tendency decision, natural to influence the it have had a to variety necessarily judgment in facilitate the infinite does not may emerge perhaps patterns is factual of other —which year employ why later. think not it Costello We we did fix context, elsewhere, naturalization to it safer in the object inquiry: guide central of the whether the as our predictably capable concealment was or tendency affecting, affect, had a natural offi- e., i. question, course, The officialdecision cial decision. requirements applicant meets the for citizen- whether misrep- specifically ship, is whether the the test more so that tendency produce reservation or concealment had a natural applicant qualified. the conclusion that the This test unequivo- of met, must be course, evidence is clear, convincing. g., cal, See, e. v. Schneiderman (1943). Though U. S. this formulation may verbally precise application seem less Chaunt, than may produce uniformity, greater judges well since are ac- using body large customed and can it, consult of case precedent. Kungys’ hold, therefore,
We that the test of whether con- cealments or were material is whether they tendency natural had a to influence the decisions of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. To determine the holding upon disposition present effect of this our case, *12 1451(a) § materiality we first must consider whether under is may an law, issue of which we for ourselves, decide or one of by again fact, which must be decided the trial court. Here we see reason no not to follow has what been done with the materiality requirement dealing under other statutes with public “[T]he materiality to officers. falsely per- what is sworn, when element the crime of jury, is for the one court.” Sinclair v. 279 (1929). U. 298 As S. the Sixth Circuit has said a case § involving 18 U. S. C. 1001:
“[Although
materiality
upon
the
of a statemеnt rests
a
evidentiary showing,
finding
factual
the ultimate
of ma
teriality
interpretation
turns on an
of substantive law.
responsibility
interpret
it
Since
is the court’s
to
the
proper
[it
treat]
law,
substantive
we believe
is
materiality
legal question.”
issue of
United States
Abadi, 706 F.
178, 180,
v.
2d
cert. denied,
B misrepresentation then, We turn, whether the one on finding upheld by which the trial court’s was considered and misrepresentation place the Third of the date and Circuit—
773 foregoing Kungys’ test.6 As material under birth —was misrepresentation Kungys made that earlier, discussed proceeding and the naturalization 1947 visa both application proceeding. insofar as of the “concealment But 1451(a) § misrepresentation” concerned, is clause of we or episode. improper to address the 1947 Unlike find testimony 1101(f)(6), § “for the which covers false immigration any obtaining and natural- benefits” under misrepresentation” or clause laws, the “concealment ization 1451(a) applies § only where the “order and certificate of procured of mate- . concealment . . were naturalization misrepresentation.” Procurement of fact or willful rial Especially including visas, is not covered. benefits, other 1101(f)(6), § unpersuaded by light we are of this contrast with argument misrepresentation in that a the Government’s “procures” proceeding naturalization because it ob- visa prerequisite residence, which turn is a United States tains § argument naturalization, see U. S. C. 1429. same respect ef- made to a with could reading produces course, enrollment in a which fects free literacy, English prerequisite see U. S. C. 1423.7 misrepresenta- analysis or stretches “concealment Such 1451(a)beyond intent, its which we think clause of tion” *13 requirement White observes there is no that we Although as Justice 809, only post, not misrepresentation, this it is our normal on one focus legal consequences of contested district practice to consider fact-bound appeals. findings yet not reviewed the court of court coverage prospect such “foolish. White considers the 7 Justice assuredly is, why Post, precisely it which is we policy at 808. As a matter establish, however, how lan example. an Justice White fails it as use . . [be] and certificate of naturalization . guage requiring that “order conceivably misrepresentation” interpreted to ex procured by . . . can yet misrepresentation example including the at the visa this while clude concede) (we policy It is not as a matter be foolish. not stage which would prudent policy except within the confines of the function to our construct statutory text. deceptions
limited to falsehoods or proceeding.8 in the naturalization solely Looking, question Kungys’ therefore, to the whether misrepresentation place of the date his and birth his petition meaning naturalization was material within the §1451(a), we conclude that was not. There been no has suggestion that those facts were themselves relevant to his qualifications citizenship. though they for not, Even were tendency of them would have a natural citizenship to influence the determination, and thus be a mis- representation place facts, of material if the true date and predictably birth would have disclosed other facts relevant to qualifications.9 his But not even that been has found here. merely The Third Circuit held: [Kungys]
“[H]ad applied told the truth at the time he citizenship, discrepancies his between the truth and his visa materials would have resulted either a field investigation outright petition. anor denial of the Had investigation transpired, investigation prob- . .. such ably petition would have resulted denial of since prove ineligibility it would have tended to his for a visa previously In the first case, instance. this noted, 8It quite question, here, is a different not argued whether, under the governing Kungys’ misrepresenta statutes the issuance of visas invalid, concealments at that time rendered his visa or causing tions thus (since unlawful, his United States residence to be lawful residence ais naturalization) requirement “illegally proсured” his naturalization to be 1451(a). separate See Fedorenko v. provision under (1981). 449 U. S. 9Justice Stevens minimizes the require substance of what we de scribing showing “by convincing it as no more than a clear and evidence Post, true facts would have investigation.” led further at 793. investigation But further not predictability would occur—and its could as suredly convincing clear not be the facts at not issue were such as —if gave applicant cause to believe that qualified. was not We are not talking investigations by hobbyists, by public about detective but officials seeking only concerning qualifications. evidence *14 persecution of Nazis —which claim
the defendant’s directly eligibility called into related is —would question.” at 533. 2d, 793 F. explained Kungys his had that, to us not so clear
It seems place here, as he has of birth earlier misstatement of date and likely produced supra, discrepancy would see n. investigation, “outright or that inves or an either denial” tigation produced the described outcome.10 But would have high probability that or another of those con one even a discrepancy sequences from the does have resulted would misrepresentation Kungys’ was material. not establish 1451(a)imposes for “concealment denaturalization Section of materiality added); (emphasis and the re a material fact” misrepresentation provision quirement implicit in like a material Thus, wise relates to fact. of tendency misrep purposes determining a the natural §1451(a),what is rele affect a decision under resentation to knowledge ensued from official is what would have vant (in Kungys’ misrepresented true date case, fact this birth), place from official not what would have ensued inconsistency posited knowledge assertion between a an earlier assertion of falsehood. On basis the truth and reasoning, misrepresentation that, of the Third Circuit’s proceeding utterly in the immaterial both visa itself, and of proceeding, becomes material sim and in the naturalization ply repeated in That is nоt what the stat- because it is both. dispute regard that there was a factual whether those note in this We persecution given priority victims of Nazi were for non- who had been apparently found the preference Although the District Court evi visas. (NJ inconclusive, 1104, 1137, 1983), point Supp. 571 F. n. dence on this dispute Appeals resolved the the Government’s favor. We the Court of only that could be drawn from the do not believe that resolution is the one Appeals improperly record, the Court of made a and thus conclude Seafoods, Icicle Inc. v. finding disputed question of fact. See Wor on (1986). thington, 475 U. S. *15 tendency intends. must have ute What a natural to influ- misrepresentation the official is the ence decision not itself, inconsistency misrep- the failure to create an with earlier truth, to not resentation; the failure state the the failure to state what had been stated earlier. Government has clearly, unequivocally, convincingly to establish failed Kungys’ misrepresentation place of the date and of his tendency. had birth this natural Third
We leave it to the Circuit on remand to determine misrepresentations the other whether or concealments that sup- the District Court found have been made in 1954were by ported the evidence material to the naturalization bearing under we decision the standard have described— high unusually proof in mind the burden of denaturalization Baumgartner v. cases. U. S. 665, 670 (1944);Schneiderman, 320 U. If S., so, at 158. it will have 1451(a) reach the fourth issue described our earlier analysis: Kungys “procured” citizenship whether his means of those or concealments. That requirement demands, first of all, that be ob- application process as tained a result of the which the mis- representations or concealments were made. The difficult question, part company and that on which we with Justice opinion concurring judgment, is what it de- Stevens’ beyond agree petitioner’s mands that. We do not with con- requires tention that it Government establish that granted misrepre- naturalization nоt have been if the would If sentations or concealments had not occurred. such a “but 1451(a), requirement for” causation existed in it is most un- likely materiality requirement that a would been added requiring, as in addition to distortion decision, well— tendency Moreover, natural to distort decision. the dif- ficulty establishing causality, unequivo- “but for” clear, convincing many years cal, and evidence after the fact, is so Congress such a great intended conceive that that we cannot misrepresentation could met before a material to be burden “procured think, however, that the We do be sanctioned. beyond by” given language some effect can and should be requirement have been mere materiality proceeding. application can Proof in the made establishing presump- regarded a rebuttable sometimes be g., Inc. 485 U. S. Levinson, v. See, e. Basic tion. *16 (1988). by” language Though “procured of the the 245-249 require proof disquali- present of be read to statute cannot express notion that it to the can be read fication, we think proceeding in a where he obtained his one who disquali- presumably misrepresentations was material made rights importance to at us con- the issue leads of fied. that to refute naturalized citizen should be able clude that the consequence presumption, denaturalization, of the and avoid showing, through preponderance by evidence, that a misrepresentation requirement statutory as to which the produce tendency to a decision was a natural favorable had gives ample meaning to a construction fact met.11 Such “materiality” “procured by” requirements. both the a adopt requirement Stevens’ concurrence would Justice that necessity emphasizing for” causality, “but language ignored is the statement in this sentence The italicized applicant “refute the require that to concurrence we Justice Stevens’ might by an fact have been revealed every disqualifying that existence added). Post, (emphasis investigation.” at 793 demonstrating that there is a is that “even
Justice Stevens correct misrepresentation would not be explanation for the completely innocent misrep- procurement by prevent finding a willful always to sufficient” however, certainly one might, since it is Ibid. Sometimes resentation. determining whether that the court can take into account the factors to mis- disqualifying fact relevant applicant established that the has case, assuredly rare a any In it will representation not did exist. shown, convincingly, clearly, unequivocally, and lie has which been applicant quali- tendency produce the that the conclusion natural “completely explanation.” innocent fied, will have a at that the establish, least, Government misrepresenting ap inwas fact not to be naturalized. This em plicant qualified another with “but for” phasis highlights difficulty causality: not conceivable construction of requirement simply 1451(a) if “procured misrepresentation” provision adheres, one concurrence purports Justice Stevens’ 795-796, see at to our in Fedorenko do, post, holding any even without failure to misrepresentation applicant’s statutory meet a for naturalization him requirement subjects to denaturalization under the “illegally procured” provision 1451(a). Fedorenko, S., 506-507, U. 514-515.12 concurrence’s Thus, Justice construction violates Stevens’ the cardinal rule of statutory interpretation that no provision entirely See, should be construed to be redundant. e. g., Franklin, 379, Colautti v. 439 U. S. Jarecki (1979); v. D. Co., G. Searle & 367 U. S. 307-308 (1961); United (1955). Menasche, States v. 348 U. S. 538-539 It makes nonsense of the statute to that its say pro vision can be the basis of if only denaturalization the Govern- *17 difficulty by saying Justice Stevens’ concurrence avoids this that apply “insignificant,” “trivia[l],” not Fedorenko does or or “technical!]” Post, 799-800, requirements. Apart precise at n. 11. from the than less qualification, Fedorenko, character of this it is nowhere to be found in which said: time, recognized
“At the same our cases have also that there must be compliance eongressionally imposed prerequisites with all the strict to the acquisition citizenship. comply any Failure to of with of these conditions citizenship ‘illegally procured,’ renders the certificate of and naturalization unlawfully procured S., (emphasis that is can be set aside.” 449 U. added). is, moreover, any It difficult to see how regard- willful ing compliance requirement, a naturalization with no matter how technical merely requirement, “insignificant” that can be considered an or “trivial” purposes determining violation for of whether has been unlaw- Thus, fully procured. by amending Fedorenko even Justice Stevens showing misrepresentation provision, has not succeeded in how the willful interpreted prefer, anything already he as would would do not achieved procured” provision. “illegally itself, that is without in addition a factor establishes
ment anyway. misrepresentation, On for denaturalization basis says, reading, in ef- the law concurrence’s Justice Stevens’ may by lying Citizenship you revoked, but obtain fect: likely lying. only to have than This is a reason other for only upon congressionally the most effect desired deterrent making prevaricators. an But worse than dim-witted posi- enigma concurrence’s statute, Stevens’ Justice Proof the statute achieves: a scandal of the results tion makes applicant an officer at he said he was not SS lied when clear, without not for denaturalization would suffice Dachau disap- years convincing proof unequivocal, —after guilty pearing of war crimes. evidence—that he Ill A argues, basis as an alternative The United States upholding affirming denaturalization, Third Circuit’s Kungys’ misrepresentations, oath and made under citizenship “illegally forged his documents, rendered form of 1427(a)(3), §§1101(f)(6), procured” 8 U. S. C. under 1451(a). “illegal alleged ground earlier, As discussed good requisite Kungys moral procurement” lacked naturalization, because time of his 1954, at the character obtaining testimony given for the had false he proceedings, naturalization visa and both the benefits 1101(f)(6). aspect this In with connection violation of (and only judgment, the issue considered address we affirmative) whether the Third Circuit: in the resolved 1101(f)(6) materiality requirement for false testi- contains a mony. not. hold that it does We *18 1101(f)(6), person § not shall be deemed 8 U. S. C.
Under testimony given good false if he “has moral character to be of immigration obtaining” or naturalization for the 1101(f)(6) distinguish § be- does not face, its benefits. On misrepresentations. Liter- and immaterial tween material 780
ally person read, it denominates a to be of bad moral charac- having given testimony if ter on account of false he has told subjective most immaterial intent even the of lies with the obtaining immigration think or naturalization benefits. We precisely says. it means what 1101(f)(6) § materiality requirement
The absence of a can (like explained by primary purpose the fact that its is not 1451(a)) prevent pertinent being false data from intro (and process duced into the naturalization to correct the occured), proceedings result of the where that has but to identify good appears lack of moral character. The latter degree subjective some whenever there is a intent to de deception. ceive, no matter A how immaterial the literal reading produce of the statute does not draconian for results, “testimony” several First, reasons. is limited to oral state ments made under oath. The United that it States concedes types misrepresentations does not include “other or con cealments, such as not falsified documents or statements Supplemental made under oath.” Brief for Supp. 3. United States (SD g., Hoy, e. See, 169 598, Sharaiha v. F. Cal. 1959); Ngan, (1964); Matter 10 I. N. Mat & Dec. (1959). ter 8 I. & N. Dec. L—T—, 403, 404-405 See of G— (1913). Ensign Pennsylvania, also v. U. S. 1101(f)(6) applies only Second, those immigration subjective obtaining made with the intent of acknowledges: benefits. As the Government only dishonesty accompanied by precise “It is this intent Congress morally unacceptable. found Willful mis- representations reasons, made for other such as embar- privacy, rassment, fear, or a desire for were not deemed sufficiently culpable applicant to brand the as someone good Supplemental who moral Brief lacks character.” 12. United States Obviously, relatively it will be rare that the Government prove will be does able to that a tendency not have re- the natural to influence the decision *19 immigration garding or naturalization benefits was none- subjective obtaining made with the intent of theless those especially invalidating This is so since the benefits. intent, necessary support factual matters like all other denatural- proved by unequivocal, must be ization, “‘clear, and con- vincing’ evidence which does ‘the not leave issue doubt.’” misrep- Schneiderman, 320 at 158. S., Third, U. unlike the §1451(a), testimony provisions resentation clause of the false 1101(f)(6) § apply do not to “concealments.” With all these given purpose pro- limitations, built-in and the evident straining no vision, we see reason for to avoid its natural meaning. materiality requirement would read a Stevens Justice 1101(f) § “[t]here
into because his view is no ‘material’ dis- post, language provision at tinction,” 797, between the of that language Displaced and 10 of the Persons Act of 1948 (DPA), materiality requirement whichwe found contain a Fedorenko. We think there is a world of difference between significantly the two. First, texts of the statutes are dif- phrase “willfully ferent. 10 of DPA Section uses the misrepresentation.” make a Our conclusion in Fedorenko materiality requirement grounded that this contains a “misrepresentation,” in the word which has been held to implication many have that contexts—as the name of the (which misrepresentation requires common-lawtort of a ma- falsehood) adequately 1101(f), terial demonstrates. Section phrase “giv[e] testimony.” contrast, uses the false While say statutory we do not use of the term “false” or “fal- sity” imply requirement materiality, can never such a re- quirement commonly is at least nоt so associated with that misrepresentation. recently term as it is with In fact, we falsity materiality separate requirements described misrepresentation, see Basic Inc. v. Levinson, S., U. statutory provisions n. 238, 239-240, Second, 17. differ purpose relationship provisions in their and their to other respective statutory their schemes. Section 10 of the DPA, provision misrepresentation 1451(a), like the willful is a freestanding having apparent provision no but to punish thereby immigra- deter in the *20 1101(f)(6), process. part tion Section on other hand, the is of “good a definition of what constitutes a lack of moral charac- purposes qualifying immigration. impor- ter” for More § tantly, only provision treating misrepresentation 10 the is 1101(f)(6) § DPA, whereas must be reconciled with the 1451(a). misrepresentation provision willful That seems differently reading ill to us achieved the two worded (or, provisions as the concurrence would have three it, 777-779) differently provisions, supra, see, worded to be redundant.
B Accordingly, it is that the im clear Third Circuit erred in 1101(f)(6). porting requirement materiality into Never theless, we cannot affirm denaturalization under that section any question misrepresentation because the whether made by Kungys testimony constituted “false for the obtaining” immigration or naturalization benefits cannot be resolving question answered without an additional of law and question an additional former, of fact. The which we choose not to resolve ourselves, since the case must be remanded any Kungys’ misrepresentations event, is whether consti “testimony.” tuted which must be latter, resolved making misrepresentations of fact, the trier is whether Kungys possessed subjective thereby obtaining intent immigration generally or naturalization benefits. See (is (1982) Pullman-Standard v. Swint, U. S. fact); sues are of intent factual matters for the trier Ber enyi (1967). Director, v. District INS, 385 U. S. 634-635 unpersuaded by argument We are the United States’ Kungys’ pattern illegal subjec so-called of lies establishes the alleged testimony tive intent of his false as a matter of law.
[*] [*] [*] judgment stated, For reasons of the Third Circuit proceedings reversed, and the case remanded for further opinion. consistent with this
It is-so ordered. part in Kennedy took no or consideration Justice decision of this case. Brennan,
Justice concurring. join opinion. separately, I I Court’s write however, spell showing I out more detail the believe the Government presumption ineligibility. must . make to raise a The Court that a if holds tendency is material it has “a natural produce applicant conclusion that the *21 qualified” citizenship. misrepresenta- A Ante, for at 772. tendency, tion or concealment can be said to have su.ch explains, representations predictably Court if honest “would applicant’s] quali- [the have disclosed other facts relevant to unequivocal, Ante, fications.” at 774. Proof clear, convincing evidence that had this tendency presumption ineligibility, raises a which the nat- upon Ante, uralized citizen is then called to rebut. at 777. agree I with this I construction of the statute. wish to emphasize, my presumption however, view a of in- eligibility produces does not arise unless the Government statutory evidence sufficient raise a fair inference that a disqualifying actually fact It existed. is this fair inference ineligibility, coupled fact that with the the citizen’s mis- representation nécessarily frustrated the Government’sinves- tigative my justifies burden-shifting efforts, that mind presumption employs. simply the Court Evidence that raises possibility disqualifying might that a fact have existed presump- does not entitle the Government to the benefit of a repeatedly ineligibile, tion that citizen was for as we the. emphasized, citizenship precious right, g., see, is a most e. (1949), Klapprott States, 601, v. United 335 U. S. 611-612 never and as such should be forfeited on the basis mere suspicion. speculation permit I therefore or would not invo- disqualification presumption of cation of the in circumstances not otherwise fair to where it would be infer that the citizen ineligible. actually the,Court’s nothing opinion Because is with inconsistent join I standard, it. this
Justice Stevens,with Justice Marshall whom Blackmun join, Justice concurring judgment. right precious American is “a no less than life or liberty.” Klapprott v. United 601, U. S. 616-617 (1949): result). (Rutledge, concurring in J., For native- right truly citizen it is a born that is For inalienable. the nat Congress special citizen, uralized however, has authorized procedure may citizenship. result in the revocation of provides may That statute that a certificate of naturalization granting citizenship canceled and an order if revoked proves Government order “such and certificate of natu illegally procured procured by were or were con ralization misrepresentation.” cealment of a material fact or willful 1451(a).1 8 U. S. C. petitioner
In this case thfe Government maintains that subject proved to denaturalization because it has that he Application made certain in his 1947 Immigration (Quota), repeated Visa which he in his October Petition for Naturalization. He stated that his *22 Sep- date of was 1913, birth October when 4, it fact was place 21,1915; tember he stated his that was Kaunas, birth Lithuania, when was fact Reistru. He asserted that he 1Although misrepresenta the denaturalization statute refers to “willful tion” disjunctive, and “concealment of a material in the fact” this Court has require concealment, construed to the statute that the than the no less mis representation, misrepresentation, be willful and that less the no than the States, concealment, material fact. See Costello v. to a United relate Fedorenko v. 265, 271-272, (1961); U. United 490, S. n. 3 449 U. S. (1981). 507-508, n. 28 only through July Lithuania, Kedainiai, resided October did not leave Kedainiai until when fact he 1941. bookkeeper-clerk in he been a to that had He failed disclose during war. the Kaunas brush and broom establishment a prove petitioner in its efforts to that failed Government if the true a visa he had disclosed would have been denied prove application. to that truthful in his It also failed facts complete investigation responses have led to a more would background granting petitionеr’s him visa that an before or any investigation fact have would have revealed that would disqualified petitioner obtaining Indeed, from visa. any prove if that, fact failed the existence Government appli- petitioner’s visa would have led to denial of known, disqualified becoming from an American him later cation or citizen. position petitioner’s support statements
In its false justify his Government in 1947and 1953 denaturalization the argues separate legal arguments. First, it makes two meaning misrepresentations were “material” within 1451(a) they procured citizenship. petitioner’s and that petitioner’s urges that the Government Second, — “illegally procured,” because his requi- he lacked even if not material —demonstrate application good of his at the time site moral character argument citizenship.- is tenable. Neither
I century ago, quarter in Chaunt of a v. Over a (1960), case in the Court considered a S. 350 States, 364 U. petitioner had found that concealed Court which the District Party ar- membership as well three in the Communist his they led further disclosed, rests been would that, had Immigration investigation and Naturalization Service. thought dissenting fail- Although that Chaunt’s Justices rea- his record was sufficient ure to tell the truth about arrest majority citizenship, id., at see son revoke his *23 contrary came to the conclusion. It held that the Govern- (1) prove sup- to ment had failed pressed “either that facts were if which, known, would have warranted denial of citi- (2)
zenship might or that their disclosure have been useful possibly investigation leading discovery to other citizenship.” warranting Id., facts denial of at 355. Thus procured by we a announced test for whether was misrepresentation required a material the Government prove disqualifying to of a existence fact. This result compelled requirement was both the statute’s that the misrepresentation requirement be material and that it citizenship. procure controversy parties The between the necessary parse particu- paying here makes it the statute, meaning lar attention to the of the word “material.” That merely parsing, however, confirmsthe conclusionwe reached in Chaunt. “having importance” “great
“Material” means real or con sequences.” Collegiate Dictionary Webster’s Ninth New (1983). adjective widely “material” is used to distin guish false statements that are actionable at law from those In are not. the context of criminal false statements, the require term “material” has been said to that the false state tendency ment be one that had “a natural to influence, or was capable influencing, decisionmaking of” decision body to which it ante, addressed. See at 770. In tort misrepresentation law, is material if “a reasonable man importance would attach its existence or nonexistence determining his ques choice action in the transaction in (Second) (1977). p. tion.” Restatement of Torts § 538, In law, contract is material if “it would likely person be to induce a reasonable his to manifest (Second) p. assent.” Restatement Contracts (1981).
In all of these contexts, the use of the word “material” distinguish serves to the trivial from draw- substantive, ing capable the line appear between statements that
influencing an that do not. It is reason- outcome those in the the term serves the same role to assume that able guarantees It mis- statute. that trivial denaturalization making citizenship by in the loss of do not result statements influencing only capable deci- that are the those actionable may citizenship. principle This be confer sion whether to specifically. a con- more Unlike the decision to enter stated do act in detrimental reliance on the asser- tract or to some grant citizenship is another, the decision whether tion pos- objective applicant either does or does not one. The an process requisite qualifications. facts, The on the relies sess in the con- Thus, hunches or intuitions. denaturalization not only capable influencing the the statements that are text, pre- disqualifying conceal or that are those that facts outcome discovery disqualifying facts. Our or hinder the vent rejection in of the traditional Chaunt not statement materiality, merely acknowledgment of it was an definition consequences of use in context of that term’s the realistic decisionmaking process. objective statutory supported by holding in is also Chaunt Our requirement there must a causal connection between that citizenship. misrepresentation Section and the award 1451(a)provides must that that the Government demonstrate citizenship. “procured” misrepresentation is, That requires re- demonstrate that it that the Government statute deciding misrepresentation in to allow whether lied on the imposing applicant In this causation a citizen. to become again merely requirement, law of ac- tracks the the statute misrepresentation A. in contexts. material other tionable misrepresentation, not in is, a statement accordance impor- person reasonable would attach the truth that a with may deciding form contract, enter a whether to tance only reforming voiding if the but contract, or the basis entering contracting party the statement in fact relied on §164. (Second) of Contracts Restatement the contract. misrepresentation the re- must have induced material cipient of the enter the Likewise, statement to contract.2 may person resulting law, tort recover for a loss from an- only misrepresentation, material but if he or other’s she upon the or fact relied to his her detri- (Second) Although ment. Restatement of Torts 525. recognized misrep- contract and tort it is if a both law recipient probably resentation was material, it, relied on probability requirement does not alleviate the that in- *25 (Second) distinctly. proved ducement be Restatement §167. Contracts 1451(a) anything, requirement
If the causation is spe stricter than that tort and contract lаw. The statute cifically requires misrepresentation “pro that the material merely citizenship, cure” not that it have been an inducement granting citizenship. requires Thus it that the material misrepresentation allowing must have had the effect of the person citizenship to obtain when a truthful statement would directly investigation led or after to the denial of citizen ship. In other the Government words, must have relied on offering opportunity the statement in the defendant the Although recognized become citizen. as is in tort and con any likely misrepresentation it law, tract that material was change relied on Government, the this likelihood does not imposed by the burden the statute.3 recovery Contract law also allows they for -reoranaterial statements if are fraudulent. But even in misrepresentation this instance the must (Second) have induced the formation of the contract. Restatement of Con (1981). § 167 tracts following example, though admittedly unlikely, demonstrates played by materiality distinction the roles procurement and ele Suppose appears ments. qualify individual citizenship for American on grounds. two distinct He or she claims to have lived the United required years States number of person good and to be “a moral character, principles attached to the Constitution the United disposed good and well happiness to the order and of the United prevail in a denaturalization cannot the Government Thus application in an for a natu- false statement on a based action prove unequivo- clear, it can unless certificate ralization disqualifying convincing existence of a evidence cal, and prove material, was that a To fact. prove concealed a the statement dis- must that Government qualifying discovery disqualifying aof or hindered fact disqualifying fact is a nec- of a the existence Further, fact. proof of reliance. essary Un- of the Government’s element said that a mis- disqualifying it cannot be existеd, fact less a 1451(a) citizenship. “procured” does representation Section ways qualified to be an all who was an individual not allow citizenship deprived because of of that to be citizen American discovery prevent of a fact not that did statement a false eligibility her to become his or have affected would Together separately, the materi- citizen. States congressional requirements in- ality procurement reflect away the Gov- taken unless not be status tent qualified proves person to hold that not ernment obtained.4 at the time was status *26 1427(a). claims to be the The individual also See 8 U. S. C. States.” who died Armed Forces member of the surviving spouse of an American 1430(d). to be a surviv- The claim duty. See 8 U. S. C. on active while claim to be representations are true. The false, other spouse is but the ing influencing capable of clearly because it is spouse is material surviving a However, citizenship if in fact process. the naturalization outcome of the then the qualifications, the individual’s other because of conferred was misrep- material that the able to demonstrate would not be Government citizenship. “procured” resentation 4 (1981): States, 490 in Fedorenko v. United 449 U. S. As I stated (1) whether a Chaunt test]: the really inquiries [under three “There are (2) disquali investigation, whether led to an would have answer truthful (3) have been existed, it would actually and whether fying circumstance the misstatement Regardless of whether by investigation. discovered my opinion citizenship, or for application for a visa made on an components and attach first and second analysis focus on the should proper prove can the ex- third. Unless Government weight to the little or no 790 States,
In Fedorenko v. United his 449 separate opinion (1981), pointed U. S. 518 correctly Justice Blackmun by out that as construed our decision Chaunt the mis- 1451(a) §of that the Govern- representation ground requires Id., ment the'existence facts.” at “prove disqualifying 523-524.5 Until was the Mem- today, only Justice White applicant, I disqualified istence of a circumstance that would do citizenship speculation not believe that on the should be revoked basis might investigation about what have been discovered if an had been initi- if disqualifying ated. But can the existence of a Government establish fact, prob- I if it more would consider a willful misstatement material were prompted inquiry.” able than not that a truthful answer would have more Id., J., dissenting). at 537 (Stevens, Blackmun Justice continued: “First, reasoning suggestion Court’s before Chaunt contains no this merely a naturalized citizen would be reduced to alien status because a might unqualified. him inquiry thwarted Government have shown to be Instead, willing approve only upon Court has been denaturalization prescribed statutory clear convincing showing conditions This, me, import had never been met. seems is the clear States, S., of the Court’s in Nowak v. U. exhaustive reviews United at 663-668; States, S., 656-669; Knauer v. Baumgartner United 328 U. at v. States, S., 666-678; U. Schneiderman v. United S., course, ability investigate U. at 131-159. Of the Government’s vigor may inability adversely by with be affected its to discover that cer- tain suppressed. facts have been That standard announced the Court however, Appeals, to me to this seems transform interest unham- pered investigation Application into an end itself. that court’s stand- suggests deliberately any ard that a question false answer to the Govern- may ment worth asking deems be material. I considered do not believe weak proof contemplated by such a standard of was ever this Court’s prior to decisions Chaunt. “Instead, I conclude that the Court in Chaunt intended to its ear- follow cases,
lier and that its simply ‘two tests’ are methods the ex- two which disqualifying istence might proved. of ultimate facts reading This test; Chaunt is consistent with actual language of the so-called second *27 appears meaning it also to be the that the Chaunt dissent believed the Court to intended.
“Significantly, policy this view with informing accords considerations decisions in of Court’s the area denaturalization. If naturalization сan years conferred, or after suspicion revoked decades it is on the mere to have with this of the reading ber of the Court disagreed Chaunt opinion. Even it is not clear whether today, Chaunt, with this or disagrees interpretation simply Court it based on its current notion of “the wisdom of ex- rejects ante, See at 769. perience.” firm
In the wisdom of has my opinion, experience provided of the de- for Chaunt’s Our construction holding. support must be animated our by longstanding naturalization statute I of the sanction severity being sought. recognition that denaturalization is far too a sanc- heavy believe firmly on an otherwise innocent citizen for making tion impose statements 1947 and 1953. Without evidence any false he in 1948 or before came to United States wrongdoing his the revocation of after he acquired citizenship that is tantamount citizenship punishment petitioner’s —a excessive.6 exile or banishment —is patently in our The wisdom of is further reflected experience prior when it a burden on Government imposing special cases exclusion, might I fear that that certain undisclosed facts have warranted S., danger rights of are of erosion.” U. the valued (footnotes omitted). (emphasis original) 524-526 explaining why special procedural safeguards are In his concurrence proceedings, Rutledge appropriate in denaturalization Justice advanced importance requirement demonstrates the argument that further prove disqualifying fact. He the Government the existence of wrote: away citizenship deprives right precious him a a man’s no less “To take today liberty, comprehends rights which those
than life or indeed of one lay upon punishment all To the citizen the of exile for and almost others. murder, treason, penalty committing or even is a thus far unknown to our Const., doubtfully Congress’ power. at most but within U. S. law and suit, device or label or a civil carried forward Amend. VIII. Yet procedure Bill safeguards provided of criminal with none of the all, held, comprehensive right of so it has been Rights, this most and basic may penalty away and in its wake follow the most cruel can be .taken banishment. birthright strip could a natural-born citizen of his or procedures “No such v. 335 U. S.
lay open penalty.” Klapprott him to such (1949). 601, 616-617 *28 792 explain- in Thus, an American citizen. to denaturalize
seeks proof why ing burden of this kind of civil the Government’s equivalent proceeding cases, to that enforced criminal judgments proceedings why in denaturalization default the Court has written: intolerable, are consequences may grave be more “Denaturalization consequences flow from conviction for than long recognized plain . . . This Court has crimes. deprive person American fact that to of his extraordinarily penalty. consequences severe may is an heavily deprivation upon of such a even rest his chil- §719. a result of the denaturaliza- dren. 8 U. S. C. As deported. petitioner has been ordered here, tion ‘To obviously deport one who so claims to be a citizen, de- liberty may prives him .... It result also loss of property and or of all that makes life worth liv- life; both ing.’ Ng Fung [1922]. White,
Ho v. 259 U. S. proceedings denaturalization have not fallen Because hardly the technical classification of crimes is within satisfactory allowing reason for denaturalization without requiring proof support money proof while a mere fine imprisonment. or a short grave consequences in
“Furthermore, because of the proceedings cident to denaturalization we have held that prove charges a burden rests on the Government to its unequivocal convincing clear, such cases evidence which does not leave the issue doubt. Schneider [1943]. States, man v. U. S. This substantially required burden is identical with proof beyond in criminal a reasonable doubt.” cases— Klapprott S., v. United 335 U. at 611-612. Virtually ignoring foregoing today law, settled burden-shifting presumption Court announces a new proof required lowers the standard of for the Government to prevail proceeding. in а denaturalization Under the Court’s test, a or concealment if is material it con- decision naturalization to the that was relevant a fact cerned predictably other have disclosed if facts “would or the true qualifications.” citizen’s] [the Ante, at 774. facts relevant *29 investiga- an may have led to if it would relevant A fact entitled becomes Thus the Government Ante, at 775. tion. qualified to be- presumption not citizen was that the the to citizenship presumption that to the is, citizen, come a by misrepresentation, by” if clear “procured it shows the convincing have led the true facts would evidence investigation. burden of then bears the The citizen further preponderance “showing, through evidence, that of the a misrepresentation had statutory requirement which the as to tendency produce inwas a favorable decision a natural original). (emphasis under Since Ante, at 777 fact met.” identify required to is never test Government Court’s apparently must re- specific disqualifying the citizen fact, a might every disqualifying fact that fute existence investigation. need The Government revealed been suggesting any proof the existence whatsoever not introduce disqualifying fact. of a opinion, joining
Though the Court’s Brennan Justice require allow the Government He would not more. would produced presumption “evi- it first unless the benefit of statutory dis- that a a fair inference to raise dence sufficient Although actually Ante, qualifying at 783. existed.” fact production imposes on the burden Brennan Justice majority agrees that the burden with Government, he persuasion Under Jus- the defendant. rests with ultimate least approach, at however, the defendant tice Brennan’s disqualifying knowing specifically fact what has the benefit require approaches the defendant must Both be rebutted. — disqualifying presumed fact of the to rebut the existence completely ex- demonstrating innocent there is a even planation sufficient would not be for the presumption. rebut the
Neither nor Justice majority’s formu- Brennan’s lation of burdens is faithful to our shifting previous recog- nition of the burden the special Government must bear when it seeks to denaturalize an American citizen or to our previ- ous rejection default judgments denaturalization pro- States, Klapprott ceedings. See v. S., 335 U. supra, 611-612; at 790-792.7 of the grave “[BJecause conse- quences incident to denaturalization proceedings,” Klapprott, (1943),
7 In Schneiderman v. United
“... citizenship [A] political certificate is ‘an granting рriv- instrument ileges, open and public grants like other to be if revoked and when it shall unlawfully be found to have fraudulently procured.’ been or ... To set grant aside such a ‘clear, the evidence unequivocal, must be and convinc- ing,’ upon cannot be preponderance done a bare of evidence which —‘it leaves the issue in doubt.’ . . . rights This is so because once conferred lightly not be should revoked. especially And more the is this true when precious rights they are and when are by adjudication, conferred solemn Id., the situation when granted.” 122-123, is is at 125.
795 always the Govern 612, at this Court has held that S., 335U. prove charges in denaturalization cases must its ment convincing unequivocal, evidence which does not clear, recognized this bur the issue doubt. We leave substantially beyond-a-reasonable- identical to the den is proof the Government criminal burden borne doubt imposi support factors that the Indeed, Ibid. cases. heavy largely in both con of so burden are the same tion importance particularly critical are immense texts — Winship, ibid.; at In re 397 U. S. stake, 358, the interests (1970), possibility liberty, Klapprott, of loss of Winship, S., In re U. S., 612; 363, at at resultant U. stigmatization, v. United 320 U. S. Schneiderman (1943); Winship, 363, 122-23 In re 397 U. at S., reliability id., outcome, interest societal burden-shifting presumptions use of to reduce 363-364. The proof in has been criminal cases the Government’s burden consistently rejected by regard to whether this Court without presumptions Frank See Francis v. were rebuttable. (1985),and cases therein. Such lin, 471 U. S. cited objectionable presumptions equally are in the denaturaliza tion context.
II why required has The reasons the Court the Government carry heavy proof denaturalization cases burden petitioner subject argument apply equally to the *31 because his false statements demonstrate denaturalization good lacked moral character 1953. that he 1451(a) § allows the to As amended Government anyone citizenship citizenship whose was “ille- the revoke procured.” gally we Fedorenko, In held thаt had procured petitioner, illegally the a former because been camp guard, ineligible visa concentration armed Displaced Act of Persons had been issued under he (DPA), Because naturalization statutes 62 Stat. 1009. lawfully applicants required the United admitted to to be permanent petitioner residence,, States for had failed to “sat- isfy statutory requirement Congress imposed a which has prerequisite acquisition citizenship by a to the naturaliza- prerequisite Fedorenko, tion.” S.,U. at 515. One to applicant “good naturalization is that the be of moral charac- 1427(a). § ter.” 8 U. S. C. Certain minimum standards for being possession good deemed in moral character are set 1101(f). 1101(f) provides out in 8 U. S. C. Subsection 6 of person good that no shall be deemed to be of moral character given testimony if he or she “has false for the of ob- taining any chapter.” benefits under this The Government necessary peti- contends that it is not for it to establish that tioner’s false statements were material to denaturalize him provision. theory, under this Under the Government’s mere fact that the statements were false is sufficient to com- pel petitioner’s they if denaturalization were made under subjective obtaining oath and with the intention of a bene- any benefit, no matter how trivial8—under the natural- fit— 8At oral argument, counsel for the following Government made the re response marks in questioning by a Member of the Court: “QUESTION: know, people You there are lot of that came to this coun- try given who were different names at Ellis Island. immigration The offi- pronounce name, said, cer couldn’t they well, Sam, okay? is that Yeah, my that’s name Sam. Now his name wasn’t Sam. give visa, “Did he procure procure that name to or to admission to States, falsely procure? “MR. [Assistant KLONOFF to the Solicitor General]: That’s a factual question case, in each we would submit.
“QUESTION: just He thing. wants to facilitate the guy will never spell Salvator, learn is, how to or whatever the name and the officer—it’s happenеd very often. question “MR. It person KLONOFF: has to be a of fact. If had adopted many, many years I. D. totally false earlier for a pur- different
pose— “QUESTION: No, no, purpose except there no get- evil to facilitate ting here, know, you in. I don’t want trying straighten to be out what *32 materiality I am Because convinced that a ization laws. re- 1101(f)(6), § reject implicit quirement I this contention. upon v. United we were called in- In Fedorenko § language provided terpret 10 of the DP which A, of willfully misrepresentation “[a]ny person make a who shall gaining admission into the United for the of States as displaced person eligible shall thereafter not be admissible agreeing held, States.” 62 Stat. 1013. We into United provision applied “only Government, this with [to] ‘material’ facts.” 449 willful about implication materiality of a re- at 507. We found S.,U. quirement section to in the DPA’s willful 1451(a) § having logically from our construction of follow though plain language requires requirement its such a even only misrepresentation have been willful. That that the logic applies here. There is no “material” distinc- same language the DPA at issue in Fedorenko tion between 1101(f)(6). language v. and Sheshtawy, See States 1983). (CA10 implausi- 714F. 2d It is Sam, care; proper spelling my says name is. He I what do Sam is fine. adopted identity getting If
“MR. he a false facilitate KLONOFF: jumped pack— ahead of the
“QUESTION: you facilitating getting consider that in? Do “MR. We would. KLONOFF: quicker so the fellow
“QUESTION: to facilitate —to make it doesn’t Just spell figure have to out how to Salvator. with position. That would be our That’s
“MR. KLONOFF: consistent statutory— Wow, position, proba- I are “QUESTION: tough that’s a think there Arg. bly people that excludable.” Tr. of Oral 39-40. a lot of are (and people would be excludable a lot of The observation that lot citizenship) put losing their under the Government’s Americans at risk course, misrep- is, example instructs that interpretation correct. The being the decisions made to matters that are immaterial resentátions as good charac- by immigration simply do not reflect the lack of mоral officials 1101(f)(6) identify. ter seeks to *33 of the the language intended that Congress to suggest ble had no such but materiality requirement, DPA to a engraft 1101(f)(6).9 § in drafting intention DPA § 10 both materiality, In to requiring addition have been 1101(f)(6) statement the false § require immi- under a benefit obtaining the purpose made for would The Government laws. and naturalization gration in individual’s motive a test subjective have us adopt inquire the factfinder thus case, forcing any particular falsehood was why particular in each case the defendant determinations many and insuring asserted An test is objective battles. credibility boil down would a false approach, an objective Under far more reasonable. made “for the considered would testimonial statement immigration under [the benefits any of obtaining a the defendant ben- of giving if in had the effect fact laws]” An test would objective laws. the immigration efit under whether a each case inquiring necessity eliminate the reasons, personal his or her date of birth for lied about person 9 accept and the Court that both the Government ironic It is somewhat disjunctive implicit in the refer materiality requirement fact that a ante, 1451(a), 767, §in but reach misrepresentation” see “willful ence to 1101(f)(6). Moreover, implica § respect contrary conclusion with 1101(f)(6) § with the inter materiality requirement is consistent tion of “any 1015(a), punishes making of which false S. C. pretation of U. case, relating to . . . oath, any proceeding, or matter under statement have construed naturalization, registry aliens.” Courts citizenship, or false statement be material. requirement that the to contain a the statute 1913) (to (WD Bressi, con F. 370-371 Wash. States v. testimony ease the swearing a naturalization the crime of false stitute expressly not so though the statute does be material even given had to 1955) (courts (SDNY Laut, R. D. United States state); v. 17 F. 1015(a) materiality to have a consistently and its forebears construed expressly contain this does not requirement though even the statute limitation). mere vanity, such as or to conceal information that would lead to the denial of a visa or certificate of naturalization.10 If the false statement as to had age actually the effect of ob- individual a benefit he or she taining would not other- then, wise have enjoyed, only then, would American citi- have been An zenship “illegally procured.” test is objective more consistent with the burden heavy borne proof Government denaturalization cases and with the severity of the sanction. Because states of mind are diffi- notoriously *34 cult to an test also prove, objective has the critical virtue of the risk of diminishing erroneous determinations.
It is obvious that there is some between the overlap scope of the misrepresentation and illegally-procured clauses of 1451(a).11 § That the Government in some may cases be able to choose one of two available paths a citi- denaturalizing
10Counsel for the argument: Government asserted at oral just say “Let me round the situation out. age Let’s that is funda- mentally important made, being person to the decision that’s but the age doesn’t know this. He lies about his trying not because he’s to obtain benefit, immigration sitting but because his wife is him there next to and throughout marriage their he has age lied about his and he doesn’t want to tell the truth.
“Now, type clearly lying deliberately, that of lie is willful. He was but lying immigration he wasn’t to obtain benefits.. . . He has made a material misrepresentation willful, and it’s but he doesn’t fit good within the moral provisions.” Arg. character Tr. of Oral 29-30. they
11 Although overlap, they are not Illegal procure coterminous. originally appeared ground ment aas for denaturalization in the Act of 29, 1906, 15, 59-338, 601, provided June Pub. L. 34 Stat. which that proceedings ground denaturalization could be based the “on of fraud ground citizenship pro or on the that such certificate of illegally was provision Nationality 1940, cured.” The was retained the Act of Pub. 76-853, deleted, however, L. 1137. It Immigration Stat. was in the and 1952, Nationality 82-414, 340(f), 261, Act of Pub. L. 66 Stat. which sub provision stituted the that procured could be revoked if it was by misrepresentation.” “concealment of a material fact or willful The purpose change language of the was to make'-elear that the statute en- conduct, does not however, the same essentially sug- zen for more lenient should be made paths either that gest intended. than Congress Rep. fraud. extrinsic intrinsic S. No. 81st both
compassed (1950). Sess., 756, 769 Cong., 2d ground an alternative for denatural- procurement was restored as Illegal 26, 1961, 87-301, 18,§ September Pub. Act of L. Stat. ization history of the restora- legislative clear from 656. It is important persons who did not meet to allow denaturalization tion was guilty but for naturalization who were not willful statutory prerequisites Sess., 1, Rep. Cong., No. 1st See H. R. 87th misrepresentation. (1961). Congress particularly concerned that criminal conduct 38-40 incest, not form the for denaturalization rape, and fraud could basis such as illegally-procured illegally-procured provision. Although the without encompassed may some the conduct within material provision reach provision, illegally-procured provision has inde- misrepresentation pendent broader reach. provision
Further, material reaches some conduct provision. illegally-procured under the The Government not assailable construing misrepresentation provision to the material re- contends provision meaningless quire proof disqualifying of a fact renders since always illegally- could seek denaturalization under the Government procured prove disqualifying if it provision could fact. Government *35 facts in holding citizenship construes our on the Fedorenko that apparently applicant if it is may illegally procured discovered that the be considered statutory pre- citizenship was conferred to meet a failed at the time every citizenship warranting newly that requisite of as conclusion insignificant, noncompliance, how would no matter warrant a discovered Thus, finding citizenship illegally procured. had been subsequent for applicant’s period physical example, an innocent miscalculation of State, presence particular or residence a within United States within 2, ante, perma- naturalized in place n. would a citizen’s status see disagree. pro- jeopardy. illegally-procured I I not construe the nent do despite reality that an individual vision to reach such trivialities who day fulfilling the application one before submitted resi- statutory technically “satisfy dency requirements would failed to re- acquisition quirement Congress imposed prerequisite as a to the which has Fedorenko, S., citizenship by at 515. naturalization.” U. How- ever, that a citizen had will- if the Government could establish naturalized residence he or she fully misrepresented his or her time of and that would residency citizenship if the true duration of had been have been denied 1451(a). known, subject person would be to denaturalization under III attempted prove The the existence of a Government disqualifying by introducing fact before the District Court testimony, videotaped deposition proved it which asserted petitioner’s participation in the Kedainiai atrocities. testimony deposition and District Court found unreliable depositions only for the limited admitted establishing that the atrocities occurred.12 Because the Appeals propriety ruling, Court of did not address the of this judgment I would vacate its and remand the case for further proceedings opinion. not inconsistent with this O’Connor, concurring dissenting
Justice part part. join opinion
I III I, II-A, Parts of Justice Scalia’s given II this case. For the reasons Part of Justice opinion, I Part II-B of Jus- however, dissent from White’s opinion. my In stand- view, when the correct tice Scalia’s materiality applied ard of of this the mis- case, to the facts representations by petitioner properly made are viewed as material. White,
Justice dissenting. complaint In Government filed to denaturalize petitioner. why jus- It set out three reasons this action was petitioner tified. in the First, tried to show assisted Kedainiаi, arrest and more than civilians in 2,000 execution during period Lithuania, a 2-month 1941. The Govern- videotaped depositions ment taken in the offered three Soviet Although proof Union of this claim. the District Court depositions strongly prove that these would tend to observed they if the Government’s case were admitted as evidence hypothetical concern The difference between this case and the Court’s *36 ante, ing Dachau, at critical. Proof clear and SS officer at see convincing official status evidence that a naturalized citizen concealed his case, at In this good Dachau character. would establish his lack of moral however, any connection be proof there is no such official or unofficial petitioner tween and the atrocities at Kedainiai. qualification, only
without admitted them for the showing place. that the atrocities took Without ex- evidence, cluded the District Court held that the Government prove failed this claim. petitioner
The Government also showed that had made cer- applying in tain false statements for his in visa and his natu- petition. ralization These false statements concerned his place occupations, birth, date and his wartime and his war- petitioner years age time residence: added two to his and city misstated the in he was born, which listed various occu- pations engaged he that was from 1942to 1947without list- ing bookkeeper years, that he was a for several of those city swore that he had resided in another rather than Kedainiai at the time these atrocities The District occurred, petitioner misrep- Court found that had indeed made these they resentations, but that were immaterial under 8 U. S. C. 1451(a) facts, because the true if known, would not them- selves have warranted denial of a visa and would not have led investigation. to an See Chaunt v. 364 U. S. (1960). inquire therefore It did not into what an investi- gation might have uncovered.
Finally, petitioner’s the Government asserted that false representations, whether or material, not were themselves petitioner good sufficient to show that did not have moral qualify and that character therefore he did not for naturaliza- 1427(a) 1101(f)(6). §§ tion under 8 U. S. C. The District rejected ruling Court this claim also, that because the false they were statements issue not material, were not prove petitioner good themselves sufficient to lacked moral character. accordingly judgment peti-
The District Court entered for appealed, Appeals tioner. The Government and the Court of Initially, Appeals agreed reversed. the Court of with District Court that must be material grounds finding order to constitute sufficient lack of 1101(f)(6). “good disagreed moral character” under It with *37 respect materiality however, with to the Court, the District application of the false statements the visa and the natural- petition, holding misrepresentations ization that about age triggered investigation an birth and would have discovery probably disqualify- have led facts would ing petitioner and for naturalization. It not for visa did rule on the Government’s further submission the District admitting videotaped depositions Court erred not into qualification. evidence without argued reargued been and
This case has now before this today judgment Court. The Court reverses the of the Court Appeals and remands for further consideration of several Although agree I III-A I, II-A, issues. with Parts opinion, disagree parts I the Court’s with other and with the it reaches. I therefore result dissent.
I judgment grant I affirm the would below and the Govern- petition I ment’s for denaturalization. The Court holds, agree, holding peti- that there was error below that material in tioner’s must be order to con- grounds petitioner finding for lacks stitute sufficient 1101(f)(6). § “good moral character” under As the Court distinguish states, the statute “does not between material misrepresentations,” and immaterial but instead “denomi- person nates a ing given to be of bad moral character on account of hav- testimony if
false he has told even the most immate- subjeсtive obtaining immigration intent rial of lies with the at 779-780. In Ante, or naturalization benefits.” addition 1101(f)(6), § language compels to the which in itself this legislative history of the 1961amendments to conclusion, 87-301, 18, Pub. L. 75 Stat. shows that statute, Congress sought grounds upon not broaden, restrict, which naturalization could be revoked.1 1952, “illegal procurement” grounds revoking constituted Prior to Congress Immigration citizen’s naturalization. When enacted 340 of In this connection, we must bear mind the necessity of striking appropriate balance between the serious conse- that attend loss quences and the need for “strict *38 with all the compliance congressionally imposed prerequisites to the Fedorenko v. acquisition citizenship.” (1981). 490, 449 U. S. We need not decide in this 1101(f)(6) § case whether would bar naturalization of an indi- vidual who offered a of false single piece testimony only one instance or who later offered a reasonable explanation for why misstatements were we also made; need not decide whether such a construction of the statute would be incon- sistent with a proper of the two balancing important but op- posing considerations set out above. There may well be cases in a which willful single but immaterial misrepresenta- tion would be insufficient to establish lack of good character, but would constitute grounds for denaturalization if it were material. Similarly, there are cases like this one which re- and peated numerous willful misrepresentations a justify Nationality 1952, and dropped, Act of explanation, without “illegal procurement” provision, adding in its stead the “concealment of a material fact” or misrepresentation” “willful language. provision The deleted was 1451(a) by §in amendments, reinserted the 1961 87-301, 18,§ Pub. L. Stat. 656. Report The House accompanying the amendments noted that illegality “[elimination of the ground bars denaturalization under section proved 340 unless it is that person the naturalized guilty has been wrongdoing amounting to concealment of a material fact or willful misrep- resentation. . . .” Rep. H. R. Cong., Sess., No. 87th p. 1st (1961). Report explained “[p]roof of concealment of material facts or willful fraught ... difficulty,” id., with at 1451(a) and that necessary the amendment to congres- “[t]he because person sional mandate that no possessed shall be naturalized unless of cer- qualifications tain is ineffectual statutory provision unless there is also revoking citizenship prerequisites where the did not in fact exist.” Ibid. These congressional statements evince clear “illegal procure- intent that ment” be separate denaturalization, maintained as a basis for and do not 1101(f)(6) collapsing § sanction misrepresenta- into the willful and material 1451(a). tion or provision concealment notwithstanding good finding character moral lack of may misrepresentations not involve material facts. testimony petitioner’s was not confined to one false Here, only single piece evidence. it concern nor did occasion, process during naturalization before or at no time And n attempt voluntarily step petitioner and to ex- forward did misrepresentations. plain To the for his various the reasons contrary, the District Court demon- facts as found convincingly peti- clearly, unequivocally, and strate repeated pattern engaged in tioner stage application and dur- the visa both and nondisclosures proceedings. ing The District Court naturalization his found: proceedings [peti-
“Throughout his visa place misrepresented tioner] of his birth. the date *39 [petitioner] application a visa failed in his for In addition concealed) (and presence in his therefore to disclose period during 1940-42 and he failed to Kedainiai concealed) (and a that he had been disclose therefore bookkeeper-clerk and estab- in the Kaunas brush broom [Petitioner] during period. in ef- the 1941-44 lishment perpetuated or concealments non-disclosures these fect by proceedings represent- throughout his naturalization application ing in his visa contained that the information (NJ 1983).2 Supp. 1139 F. 571 was correct.” a naturaliza 23, 1953, oath before petitioner swore under On October forms were true. As naturalization that the contents of his tion examiner supplied an incor petitioner above, testimony false in that this stated he had birth, that the information represented and he place rect date testimony falls within This false application was true. supplied in the visa 1101(f) period “during for petitioner § offered because coverage peti Although established.” required is to be good moral character which not, stage standing application is testimony given at the visa tioner’s false directly relevant to the provision, it is alone, similarly covered this 1427(e) provides that Section character” determination. “good moral petitioner’s determination, limited to the court “shall not be making this petition, may filing of the but years preceding the during the five conduct 1101(f)(6) § speaks congressional expressed in The clearly mandate pattern that statute would falsehoods, to such a petitioner pos- precluded determination petitioner Accordingly, “good moral character.” sessed becoming prerequisite a naturalized cit- lacked essential having subject “il- and he is now to denaturalization izen, legally procured” 1451(a). § citizenship. his materiality required Despite recognition not its 1101(f)(6), uphold judgment below, the Court declines to point of one the case for consideration and remands further point point is at all law and of fact. substantial. one Neither point petitioner’s The of law is whether meaning “testimony” of the statute. constituted within 1101(f)(6) “testimony” in has notes, As Court term only referring evidence, to oral and thus as been construed by petitioner excluding submitted the written documents petitioner petition. Yet this case did his naturalization falsely misrepresentations: he when he make oral testified examiner that the swore under oath before a naturalization Deposition forms true. contents of his naturalization were of Ngan, Goldberg, App. 145-162. See Matter Julius also (1964). he Furthermore, N. had testified I. & Dec. 725 country. falsely his visa into order to obtain this petitioner-made misrep- point these of fact is whether any obtaining “for the benefits” resentations immigration and naturalization laws. There is no under difficulty point misrepresenta- this about either. The willful *40 petitioner’s in the of tions at issue here were made context petition and were made earlier at the visa naturalization petitioner’s any . . . and acts at time take into consideration the conduct interest, though prior period.” to that It is of some irrelevant to this also determination, petitioner lying in when he to ex- was still tried plain previous App. his 79-137. The trial court also found falsehoods. membership falsely organiza- he at trial in a local rifleman’s denied his military training provided that at the to its mem- tion the time of atrocities occupation on assisted bers and occasion German forces. willful, The fact that the were misrepresentations
stage. were made they during proceed with the fact coupled for and natural immigration and on documents ings required docu the and very proceedings ization purposes indeed, — to order required complete ments that petitioner he naturalization— sought gaining “benefits” “obtai[n]” 1101(f)(6). it §of The District Court satisfies the elements naturalization was false petition self found that petitioner’s it that defendant had not previ particular because “stated im false to obtain benefits under the testimony ously given F. at 1138.3 and naturalization laws.” Supp., migration there is Court, In of this the District specific finding by light to be resolved again no for this issue justification remanding the trier of fact. by
II below on declines to the decision Because Court affirm it it to revisit the def- 1101(f)(6), necessary the basis of finds 1451(a). §in “material” as it is used inition of the term test of is materiality holds that today proper Court tendency “had a natural misrepresentations whether and Naturalization Immigrаtion influence decisions petitioner made these mis phrases inquiry this as whether The Court subjective obtaining immigration or representations “thé intent of with benefits,” necessary remand on this issue be and finds it naturalization properly resolution the trier of of intent are matters for cause issues Ante, approach recasting on a of the statu 782. This rests fact. made “for requires that the tory language, which benefits, linguistic if those two obtaining” such but even purpose same, misrep exactly quite clear that when were formulations immigration process applying of fact are made resentations benefits, misrepre very in a real and immediate sense those naturalization benefits, obtaining” such and at made “for the sentations are that we should find it to be established in this case all of this is so clear least certainly correct that issues of Although of law. the Court is as a matter fact, I do not think normally for resolution the trier intent are reserved in mi unnecessarily by parsing matters prolong proceedings that we should subissues, detail, demanding their resolu croscopic creating legion dispositive clear and about this case. losing sight of what is both tion while *41 disagree I this defini- Ante, at 772. do not with Service.” application in of the definition this case tion, but the Court’s is flawed. 1451(a) § proper begin finds it under to with,
To the Court misrepresentations petitioner only in made his consider proceedings but not those made his earlier naturalization proceedings. The is much visa view United States by petitioner persuasive: made more stage procuring were instrumental to his natural at the visa by obtaining petitioner for visa obtained lawful ization, country, require which to residence this is one admission Fedorenko, naturalization under 1429. See also ment for concurring judg J., 449 ment). at 518-520 S.,U. (Blackmun, responds by any logic, misrep The Court helps any prereq individual to obtain resentation English literacy, naturalization, such as would be uisite things, however, material. These two are not considered supposed logic аnd the Court’s extension of its same, the merely proceedings The visa and the foolish. naturalization proceedings intimately only they are related not because both proceedings governed provisions the same im are migration laws, naturalization but also because the visa and part and the certificate of naturalization are obtained as process obtaining citizenship, the same and both must be lawfully procured. example, For is not mere residence country prerequisite naturalization, this that is a but resi § 1429. being “lawfully dence after admitted.” It makes no speak proceedings hand, on the other to attain sense, literacy understanding “lawful” skills or a “lawful” of Ameri history government, required can as under speak does not in these terms statute but instead mani complete and understandable indifference to how fests proficiencies. pro individual came those Thus the visa ceedings accurately regarded stage can as one crucial proceedings yet naturalization themselves, time acquiring literacy understanding spent skills or an of Ameri- *42 regarded government obviously as history cannot be and can proceedings. stage a in those proposition accept that we should the
Even if I were to materiality misrepresentations only the consider proceedings, petitioner those mis in naturalization made the tendency surely representations influence had a natural is there no matter, As an initial of the INS. decisions the misrep only petitioner’s requirement that the Court focus on place and leave his date and of his birth resentations about misrepresenta potentially significant more aside his other But Court.4 identified the District tions that were also limiting find these does, as Court I would the focus the even reaching I conclusion In this to be material. statements only of fact these would ask not whether tendency the decisions a natural to influence would have misrepresenta INS, whether fact of these but also tendency. words, a In other have had such tions would itself place only proper inquiry date and not whether the true suspicion, but also have birth, isolation, would aroused petitioner investigation had ensued whether would have an discrepancy thereby disclosed revealed the true facts and supporting doc his between statements them and false Finger, Seymour Maxwell uments. Former Ambassador January Stuttgart that if testified Vice Consul application discrepancies the visa there were between certainly investigation supporting would documents regulations with occurred, view that is consistent 1946). § 61.329(Supp. 22 CFR then effect. See petitioner also mis a matter fact that The District Court found as during which the employment the time in represented his residence 1983). (NJ Supp. at F. atrocities Kedainiai. 571 occurred challenged. The Gov findings has correctness those factual not been mis ernment, urges of these other respondent, us to consider the effect below, representations affirming the decision as an additional reason for entirely proper. which is Appeals
The Court of arrived the-same conclusion, and supports the United States this construction of the statute, materiality misrepresenta- which is a sound one. The may by considering tions be, but need not be, established may by comparison true facts alone. It also be shown be- tween those true facts and the false assertions made about plurality those same matters. Therefore, when the states “[w]hat tendency must have a natural to influence the officialdecision is the . . the itself. failure (emphasis added), wrong state the truth,” ante, at 776 it is *43 to limit its consideration to whether those true facts if alone, tendency known, would have had a natural to influence the decisions of the INS. Instead, should also consider misrepresentation whether “the itself. . . the failure to state tendency; inquiry truth” would have had such a this also encompasses knowing the INS’ the fact that the true facts do not match the seeking fаlse assertions that the individual naturalization has made about those same matters. For actually whether a has been made is itself a matter of and in fact, certain circumstances this fact alone may possess great significance. pretend Unless a court is to petitioner’s reality lies themselves are not facts, it defies knowledge to conclude that misrepresented “official means-only fact,” ante, at that the INS now knows how to correct the lies but must not take into account the fact that those lies have been told.
For these reasons, I affirm would the decision below on ground very this open also. At the least I note that it is the trier of fact knowledge on remand to consider whether petitioner’s repeated and numerous tendency would have had a natural to influence the decisions of the INS.
Ill point, emphasized As a final it should be that the Court of Appeals passed never on the correctness of the District videotaped depositions Court’s determination that the could they unqualifiedly evidence because admitted into not be inherently this issue should remand, On unreliable.5 were definitively. depositions If are found to be resolved be merely qualification, than for the rather admissible without peti then the Court, the District limited allowed regardless granted of how would be tion for denaturalization peti undisputed if it is resolved, are the other issues participated in the mass arrests to have tioner were shown qualified Kedainiai, he never would and executions subject properly and thus now would for naturalization denaturalization. respectfully
I dissent. *44 videotaped depositions the three to be unreli The District Court found Union, in the they were taken Soviet which “has a largely able because and which “on distorts or fabri strong interest” in this case occasion state interest,” involving important this state in cases such as cates evidence depositions “were conducted in a manner which made it these and because testimony improperly if the had been influenced impossible to determine Supp., at 1132. authorities.” 571 F. Soviet