United States of America v. Enrile

Filing 10

ORDER Granting 9 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Lloyd D. George on 6/14/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3

DISTRICT OF NEVADA
4
5

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

6

Plaintiff,

7

v.

8

Case No. 2:09-cv-01694-LDG-PAL

MEINRADO CALUEN ENRILE,

ORDER
9

Defendant.

10
11
12

The United States of America filed this action to revoke and set aside the grant of United

13

States citizenship to Meinrado Caluen Enrile and to cancel his Certificate of Naturalization, No.

14

27287501. See U.S.C. § 1451(a). The Government alleges that Enrile illegally procured his

15

naturalization (Counts I and II) and that he procured his naturalization through willful

16

misrepresentation and concealment of material facts (Count III). The Government has filed a

17

motion for summary judgment on all three counts. For the reasons stated herein, the court grants

18

Government’s Motion.

19

I. Analysis

20

A grant of summary judgment is appropriate only where there is no genuine issue as to any

21

material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).

22

The moving party must demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp.

23

v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). All justifiable inferences must be viewed in the light most

24

favorable to the non-moving party. Cnty. of Tuolumne v. Sonora Cmty. Hosp., 236 F.3d 1148,

25

1154 (9th Cir. 2001). The burden then shifts to the non-moving party to go beyond the pleadings

26

and set forth specific facts demonstrating there is a genuine issue for trial. Id. The party opposing

1

summary judgment “must cite to the record in support of the allegations made in the pleadings to

2

demonstrate that a genuine controversy requiring adjudication by a trier of fact exists.” Taybron v.

3

City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 341 F.3d 957, 960 (9th Cir. 2003). If the non-moving party meets

4

its burden, summary judgment must be denied. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at

5

324.

6

“The Government ‘carries a heavy burden of proof in proceeding to divest a naturalized

7

citizen of his citizenship.’” Fedorenko v. United States, 449 U.S. 490, 505 (1981) (quoting

8

Costello v. United States, 365 U.S. 265 (1961)). “The evidence justifying revocation of citizenship

9

must be clear, unequivocal, and convincing and not leave the issue in doubt.” Id. (internal

10

quotations and citations omitted). Once the court has determined that the government has met its

11

burden of proving a naturalized citizen has obtained his citizenship illegally, the court has no

12

discretion to excuse the conduct. Id. at 517.

13

Revocation of naturalization may be commenced if the citizen’s naturalization was (1)

14

“illegally procured” or (2) “procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful

15

misrepresentation.” 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a); United States v. Dang, 488 F.3d 1135, 1139 (9th Cir.

16

2007). To lawfully obtain citizenship, a person must be of “good moral character” for five years

17

immediately preceding the date of filing his citizenship application up to the time of admission to

18

citizenship. 8 U.S.C. § 1427(a). This five-year period is shortened to three years for persons living

19

in marital union with a spouse who is a United States citizen. Id. § 1430(a).

20

Count I alleges that Enrile illegally procured his naturalization because he committed

21

unlawful acts that adversely reflect upon his moral character during the relevant statutory period.

22

Unless the applicant establishes extenuating circumstances, the applicant shall be found to lack

23

good moral character if, during the statutory period, the applicant committed unlawful acts that

24

adversely reflect upon the applicant’s moral character, or was convicted or imprisoned for such

25

acts. 8 C.F.R § 316.10(b)(3)(iii). Enrile was arrested for sexual assault on October 15, 2002. Pl.’s

26
2

1

Br. Summ. J. Ex.10, at 2, ECF No. 9. He subsequently pled guilty to Lewdness With a Child

2

Under the Age of Fourteen, in violation of Nevada Revised Statute § 201.230. Pl.’s Br. Summ. J.

3

Ex.12, at 1, ECF No. 9. The violation was found to have occurred during the relevant statutory

4

period, September 26, 1998, through June 21, 2002. Id. at 8, 14. Enrile’s conviction is “clear,

5

unequivocal, and convincing” evidence that he committed unlawful acts during the statutory

6

period that adversely reflect upon his moral character and, consequently, that his naturalization

7

was illegally procured. The burden on summary judgment then shifts to Enrile to raise a genuine

8

issue for trial. Enrile has not answered the complaint and has failed to meet his burden. See LR 7-

9

2(d). Summary judgment is therefore appropriate.

10
11

This court need not resolve the issues presented in Count II and III because of its finding
with respect to Count I.

12

II. Conclusion

13

For the reasons stated herein,

14

THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF

15

No. 9) is GRANTED.

16
17
DATED this _____ day of June, 2011.
18
19

______________________________
Lloyd D. George
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3