Hussein v. Barrett et al

Filing 63

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on May 12, 2014. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/12/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SAMEH HUSSEIN,

Case No. 11-cv-05317-JST

Petitioner,
8
v.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

9
10

ROBIN BARRETT, et al.,
Respondents.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
Before the Court is Petitioner Sameh Hussein’s petition seeking de novo review of the

13
14

denial of his application for naturalization filed November 2, 2011, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §

15

1421(c). The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) denied Petitioner’s

16

application for naturalization on December 9, 2010, for failure to satisfy the Immigration and

17

Naturalization Act’s (“INA”) “good moral character” requirement, based on an allegation of tax

18

fraud. Petitioner’s administrative appeal was subsequently denied on the same basis. After

19

Petitioner filed for review of that decision in this Court, USCIS stipulated to withdraw its

20

allegation of tax fraud as a basis for denial of Petitioner’s application, but indicated its intent to

21

continue to oppose Petitioner’s application for naturalization on the grounds of false testimony

22

given during the application process. The Court held a bench trial on December 2, 2013. Having

23

carefully considered the parties’ exhibits, testimony, trial briefs, post-trial briefs, and controlling

24

legal authorities, the Court will deny the petition.

25

I.

26

LEGAL STANDARDS
District courts are authorized to review denials of applications for naturalization after a

27

hearing before an immigration officer. “Such review shall be de novo, and the court shall make its

28

own findings of fact and conclusions of law and shall, at the request of the petitioner, conduct a

1

hearing de novo on the application.” 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c). The district court “does not defer to any

2

of the INS’ findings or conclusions.” United States v. Hovsepian (“Hovsepian I”), 359 F.3d 1144,

3

1162 (9th Cir. 2004).

4

The applicant bears the burden of establishing each of the statutory requirements for

5

naturalization. 8 C.F.R. § 316.2(b). Among the requirements applicants for naturalization must

6

meet is the requirement that, for the five years preceding the filing of the application, the applicant

7

“has been and still is a person of good moral character, attached to the principles of the

8

Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United

9

States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1427(a)(3). The INA does not define the term “good moral character.”
Hovespian I, 359 F.3d at 1166. However, the INA does enumerate nine non-exclusive

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

characteristics that preclude a finding of good moral character, including the giving of “false

12

testimony for the purpose of obtaining any benefits under” the INA. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(6).

13

“Testimony” refers only to oral statements made under oath; it does not include falsified

14

documents or statements not made under oath. Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759, 780

15

(1988). The bar on false testimony applies to misrepresentations “‘made with the subjective intent

16

of obtaining immigration benefits,’ whether or not the misrepresentation is material to the

17

immigration decision.” United States v. Hovsepian (“Hovsepian II”), 422 F.3d 883, 887 (9th Cir.

18

2005) (quoting Kungys, 485 U.S. at 779). “Whether a person has the subjective intent to deceive

19

in order to obtain immigration benefits is a question of fact.” Id.

20

In addition, “[u]nless the applicant establishes extenuating circumstances, the applicant

21

shall be found to lack good moral character if, during the statutory period, the applicant . . .

22

[c]ommitted unlawful acts that adversely reflect upon the applicant's moral character, or was

23

convicted or imprisoned for such acts, although the acts do not fall within the purview of §

24

316.10(b) (1) or (2).” 8 C.F.R. § 316.10(b)(3)(iii).

25

Petitioner bears the burden of establishing good moral character by a preponderance of the

26

evidence. Hovespian I, 359 F.3d at 1168. However, the Court notes that “there must be strict

27

compliance with all the congressionally imposed prerequisites to the acquisition of citizenship.”

28

Fedorenko v. United States, 449 U.S. 490, 506 (1981). Any doubts as to whether Petitioner has
2

1

met his burden “should be resolved in favor of the United States and against the claimant.”

2

Berenyi v. District Director, INS, 385 U.S. 630, 636–37 (1967) (quoting United States v.

3

Macintosh, 283 U.S. 605, 626 (1931)).

4

II.

5

FINDINGS OF FACT
Most of the facts related to Petitioner’s application for naturalization are not in dispute.

6

Petitioner is a native citizen of Egypt who entered the United States on January 4, 1996, on a

7

student visa. He obtained lawful permanent resident status on April 5, 2000. He filed his N-400

8

application for naturalization on September 15, 2005. That application was denied on December

9

9, 2010 after USCIS found Petitioner lacked good moral character based on a conclusion that he
had committed tax fraud. Petitioner denied that he had committed tax fraud and claimed any

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

discrepancies were innocent mistakes that were corrected with amended tax returns. Petitioner

12

filed a N-336 Request for a Hearing on a Decision in Naturalization on January 7, 2011. USCIS

13

denied that request on July 7, 2011 after concluding that Petitioner had not overcome the finding

14

of tax fraud.

15

Following the filing of the instant action, USCIS stipulated not to pursue the tax fraud

16

allegations further, and changed the grounds upon which it opposes Petitioner’s naturalization.

17

USCIS now argues Petitioner lacks good moral character because he gave false testimony at his

18

naturalization interviews on March 11, 2010, and June 22, 2010. In particular, Petitioner testified

19

that he has only been married once, to Debra Hawley, on February 8, 1999. Petitioner and Ms.

20

Hawley divorced on August 5, 2008. USCIS claims that Petitioner also entered into a religious

21

marriage ceremony with Stacey Mabrey while he was married to Ms. Hawley, and that he omitted

22

that information from his interviews.

23
24
25

It is undisputed that Petitioner had three biological children with Ms. Mabrey, born in
2005, 2006, and 2008. He also cared for Mabrey’s two children from another relationship.
USCIS stipulates that Petitioner satisfies all the statutory and regulatory requirements for

26

naturalization other than the good moral requirement. In dispute is whether Petitioner entered into

27

a religious marriage with Ms. Mabrey while legally married to Ms. Hawley, rendering Petitioner’s

28

testimony during his naturalization interviews false.
3

1

A.

Religious Blessing

At trial, Hussein testified that Mabrey became a friend of his and Hawley’s in 2000, but
2
that Hussein and Mabrey did not begin their romantic relationship until after Hussein separated
3
from Hawley, in 2003. Trial Tr. at 30–34. According to Hussein, in November or December of
4

2003, Hussein’s friend Sherif Abdel Aziz performed a religious “blessing” for the couple in

5
Madison, Wisconsin. Id. at 42–44. The blessing lasted less than thirty seconds. Id. at 43:18–19.
6

Aziz corroborated Hussein’s version of events, and explained that the blessing is a recitation of the

7
first verse of the Koran. Id. at 134–36. According to Aziz, the blessing is meant to protect a new
8

relationship and to reflect the couple’s commitment to each other. Id. at 135. Aziz testified that

9
the blessing does not constitute a marriage in Islam, does not guarantee the couple will one day be
10
married, and does not constitute an engagement to be married. Id. at 138–39. According to Aziz,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

for a marriage to be recognized in the Islamic faith, there must be two witnesses, a wali (or
12

guardian for the bride), an imam, a dowry, and a publication of the marriage to the couple’s family

13
and friends. Id. at 137–38. The religious blessing Aziz performed in 2003 for Hussein and
14
Mabrey did not satisfy any of those requirements. Id. at 138.
15
16

B.

Evidence That Hussein and Mabrey Were Married

Hussein and Mabrey had three children together. Id. at 46. Hussein testified that when the
17
couple separated in 2009, Mabrey took the children to Qatar and refused to return to the United
18
States. Id. at 74–75. In attempting to force Mabrey to return the children, Hussein contacted
19
various law enforcement agencies. The Government contends that Hussein told FBI Special
20
Agent Daniel Rodriquez, on December 27, 2011, that Hussein and Mabrey were married as part of
21
his attempt to recover his children. Hussein testified as follows:
22
23
24
25

I don’t recall saying these exact words. I may have said it. I’m not
denying that I may have said that. Like I said before, it was just
easier to refer to her as my wife rather having ‒ than having to go
through all explanation. But I may have said it. I’m not sure. I
don’t recall right now.
Id. at 93–94. In response, the Government read into the record portions of its Impeachment

26
Exhibit H, which consists of three FBI reports dated October 18, 2011, December 27, 2011, and
27
January 13, 2012. The December 27 report indicates that Hussein told Special Agent Rodriguez
28
4

1

he was married. Id. at 95. In addition, the January 13, 2012 report indicates that Hussein told

2

Special Agent Rodriguez that he married Mabrey in 2003 — the same year as the religious

3

blessing. Id. at 97. Plaintiff objects now that the exhibit was never admitted into evidence and is

4

therefore not properly evidence before the Court, but the relevant portions of the report were read

5

into the record without objection. Id. at 94–98.

6

Hussein also contacted the Elk Grove Police Department as part of his efforts to force
Mabrey to return their children to the United States. Hussein admitted telling an Elk Gove

8

detective that Mabrey was his wife. Id. at 103. In addition, Hussein testified that he was “in the

9

habit of calling” Mabrey his wife “sometimes,” especially when speaking to “officials,” because

10

he wanted to “avoid public embarrassment and avoid having to go through all that explanation.”

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

Id. at 100–01.

12

The Court concludes that Hussein has repeatedly represented to law enforcement officials,

13

in connection with his custody dispute with Mabrey, that he was married to her. That evidence,

14

however, does not lead the Court to conclude that Hussein was, in fact, married to Mabrey. It

15

appears instead that he misrepresented to law enforcement that he was married because he desired

16

to avoid embarrassment, and perhaps also because he thought it would help his cause.

17

Separately, the Government contends that Hussein swore under penalty of perjury in a

18

declaration submitted to the Sacramento County Superior Court in connection with the couple’s

19

custody dispute that Hussein and Mabrey “were never married in California. However, we were

20

married under Islamic rules on December 13th, 2003 and our marriage is considered legal in Egypt

21

where I am a citizen.” Id. at 93. Plaintiff objects that the declaration, which is the Government’s

22

Impeachment Exhibit E, was never admitted into evidence and is therefore not properly before the

23

Court, but, as with Impeachment Exhibit E, the relevant portions were read into the record without

24

objection. Moreover, even without the exhibit, Hussein’s testimony confirmed that the declaration

25

stated he was married, and that he signed it. Instead, Hussein claims that his family law attorney

26

asked him, because of time and page constraints, to sign a blank signature page for a declaration

27

that his attorney drafted, and that he never reviewed. Id. at 112. He testified that he was

28

“shocked” to find on the declaration that his attorney wrote he and Mabrey had been married. Id.
5

1

He also testified that he never told his family law attorney that he had been married on December

2

13, 2003, or that the marriage was considered legal in Egypt. Id. at 113. He claimed his attorney

3

explained after the fact that it would look better to the court if the couple were married. Id. He

4

also claimed that he asked the attorney to correct the declaration. Id. at 114. As for the specificity

5

of the date contained in the declaration, Hussein testified that he told his attorney about the

6

religious blessing that occurred in 2003. Id. at 115.
Finally, Hussein testified that Mabrey filed for divorce from him in Qatar, though he never

8

participated in those proceedings. Id. at 76, 119–22. According to Hussein, Mabrey told him that

9

she had filed for divorce because it was advantageous to Mabrey to claim she had been married for

10

purposes of securing residency, permission to work, and benefits in Qatar. Id. at 122–24. He also

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

testified that Mabrey believed filing for divorce in Qatar would advantage Mabrey in the couple’s

12

ongoing custody dispute. Id. at 125.
The declaration and the fact that Mabrey filed for divorce in Qatar do, as the Government

13
14

argues, weigh in favor of a finding that Hussein and Mabrey were, in fact, married. However,

15

taking the evidence as a whole, the Court finds that it is more likely than not that Hussein and

16

Mabrey entered into a religious blessing meant to reflect their commitment to each other in late

17

2003, but that the blessing did not constitute a legal or religious marriage. However, as the Court

18

discusses in further detail below, the Court does not find Petitioner’s testimony concerning the

19

declaration and its preparation credible, and finds that it is more likely than not that Petitioner

20

knowingly misrepresented to the Sacramento Superior Court that he was married to Mabrey

21

because he perceived the misrepresentation would benefit him in his custody dispute.

22

III.

23

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Government contends that Hussein lacks good moral character within the meaning of

24

8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(6) because he gave false testimony at his naturalization interviews, his

25

deposition, and at trial, when he testified that he was married only once, to Ms. Hawley. Because

26

the Court finds that it is more likely than not that Hussein and Mabrey were never married, either

27

legally or in a religious ceremony, the Government’s argument fails.

28

However, the Court concludes that Hussein’s petition must be denied for a different
6

1

reason: his repeated false representations, at least one of which was under oath, show him to “lack

2

good moral character” under the relevant regulation.1 “Unless the applicant establishes

3

extenuating circumstances, the applicant shall be found to lack good moral character if, during the

4

statutory period, the applicant: . . . (iii) Committed unlawful acts that adversely reflect upon the

5

applicant's moral character, or was convicted or imprisoned for such acts, although the acts do not

6

fall within the purview of § 316.10(b) (1) or (2).” 8 C.F.R. § 316.10(b)(3)(iii). See United States

7

v. Dang, 488 F.3d 1135, 1141 (9th Cir. 2007) (upholding validity of regulation because “requiring

8

consideration of an applicant's unlawful acts during the five-year moral character period —

9

whether or not the applicant is convicted for the acts during that period — is not beyond the
agency's statutory mandate”). No conviction is necessary for the unlawful acts provision to apply.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Id.
Other courts have reached similar conclusions on similar facts. For example, in Meyersiek

12
13

v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 445 F. Supp. 2d 202, 206 (D.R.I. 2006), the petitioner

14

had applied for long-term disability benefits even though he had been terminated from his

15

employment for misconduct and not his disability. While the petitioner was applying for benefits,

16

he also engaged in an effort to find a new job. Although the evidence was mixed, the district court

17

denied the petition for naturalization for lack of good moral character because the “discrepancy”

18

between the petitioner’s report to the disability plan and his efforts to secure a new job “gives rise

19

to an inference that Petitioner purposefully exaggerated his limitations to support his claim of

20

‘total disability,’ thereby inducing [the disability plan] to act favorably on his claim for long-term

21

disability benefits.” Id. at 207. The district court noted that “where there is smoke, there is not

22

always fire, and this Court cannot, on this record, make a conclusive finding that Petitioner

23

intended to commit insurance fraud. It is enough, however, to find that Petitioner's actions, with

24

all doubts resolved against him, fit within the preclusive language of 8 C.F.R. § 316.10(b)(3)(iii).”

25
26
27
28

1

At the conclusion of the trial, the Court invited the parties to brief the separate question of
whether, should the Court conclude that Hussein misrepresented the nature of his relationship with
Mabrey to law enforcement authorities and the Sacramento County Superior Court, the Court
should conclude that Hussein lacks good moral character for purposes of his naturalization
application. Trial Tr. at 207–08.
7

1

Id. See also Abdi v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 923 F. Supp. 2d 1160, 1166 (D.

2

Minn. 2013) (claimant lacked good moral character based on dishonesty with law enforcement).

3

Determining whether Petitioner’s Sacramento Superior Court declaration was knowingly

4

false, and therefore perjurious, boils down to a basic issue of credibility. Petitioner testified that

5

he signed the signature page without reading the contents of the declaration and that he was

6

unaware that he (through his lawyer) had represented that he was married to Mabrey. But his

7

testimony requires the Court to believe that he gave his lawyers all the facts necessary to draft the

8

declaration, including the details of the 2003 blessing, except that he married Mabrey at the same

9

time ‒ in other words, that Hussein’s lawyer made up that one fact, and only that one fact, out of
whole cloth. The Court does not credit this explanation. Rather, the Court adopts the far more

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

likely inference that Hussein told his lawyer what he had repeatedly told other people, including

12

law enforcement officers, whenever it seemed convenient or helpful: that he was married to

13

Stacey Mabrey. Thus, even if Hussein signed a blank, orphan signature page ‒ an explanation the

14

Court also does not accept ‒ he did so knowing that his false version of events would be placed

15

into the body of a declaration he was signing under penalty of perjury. This explanation not only

16

makes more sense, but it is more consistent with the pattern of Hussein’s behavior and with the

17

standard that requires doubts in this proceeding to be resolved in favor of the Government.

18

Relying on Torres-Guzman v. I.N.S., 804 F.2d 531, 534 (9th Cir. 1986), Petitioner argues

19

that the Court must weigh the “counterbalancing factors” that evidence his good moral character

20

because “in the absence of a congressionally imposed per se rule, a statutory direction to

21

determine the presence or absence of good moral character requires the fact finder to weigh and

22

balance the favorable and unfavorable facts or factors, reasonably bearing on character, that are

23

presented in evidence.” Id. Petitioner ignores, however, that 8 C.F.R. § 316.10(b)(3)(iii) is an

24

enumerated factor, and there can be no question that perjury is a crime that adversely reflects on

25

an applicant’s good moral character. Thus, the per se category contained in the regulation

26

obviates the need for counterbalancing. Even so, if it were required pursuant to Torres-Guzman,

27

the Court finds that the repeated misrepresentations made by Petitioner are not isolated incidents.

28

Instead, as discussed above, Petitioner’s misrepresentations are part of a pattern of conduct to
8

1
2

which Petitioner himself admitted.
Moreover, Petitioner has not submitted any evidence of extenuating circumstances for his

3

misrepresentations, and the bulk of the evidence of Petitioner’s moral character unrelated to the

4

misrepresentations at issue comes directly from the testimony of Petitioner himself, which

5

testimony the Court has found to lack credibility.

6

Considering the evidence as a whole, and because the Court is obligated to resolve any
doubts it may have of Petitioner’s moral character in the Government’s favor and against

8

Petitioner, Berenyi, 385 U.S. at 630, the Court holds that the above facts preclude a finding of

9

good moral character in this case. Like the court in Meyersiek, this Court cannot find conclusively

10

that Petitioner committed perjury, but no such finding is necessary. Petitioner has failed to satisfy

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

his burden of establishing good moral character. For this reason, the petition is hereby DENIED.

12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 12, 2014
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9