Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04520/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04520-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Plaintiff
Adam Chung-Shiaing Wang
Defendant

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

ADAM CHUNG-SHIAING WANG, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C-04-4520 SC

AMENDED ORDER

GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION FOR PARTIAL

SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff United States of America ("the Government" or

"Plaintiff") filed this action to revoke the naturalization of

Defendant Adam Chung-Shiaing Wang ("Defendant"), alleging that his

certificate of citizenship was illegally procured. The Government

now moves for partial summary judgment as to Counts I and II. For

the reasons contained herein, this Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff's

motion as to Counts I and II of the Complaint. Defendant's

certificate of citizenship is hereby CANCELLED and the order

admitting him to citizenship is REVOKED and SET ASIDE. 

II. BACKGROUND

Because this is a motion for summary judgment, the Court will

regard the evidence of Defendant, as the non-moving party, as

Case 3:04-cv-04520-SC Document 31 Filed 10/20/05 Page 1 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 The INS has since merged into three Bureaus under the

Department of Homeland Security. The Court will use "INS" for

purposes of convenience and because it was the INS which first

approved Defendant's application. 

2

 Defendant's sister actually filled out the application and

checked the "No" box. See Def's Mem. at 2. 

2

true. Therefore, the following is based on Defendant's

submissions to the Court. 

The Immigration and Naturalization Service ("INS") approved

Defendant's application for citizenship on May 5, 1995. Answer at

2.1 On his application, Defendant answered "No" to a written

question regarding whether he had ever been "arrested, cited,

charged, indicted, convicted, fined, or imprisoned" for a crime,

excluding traffic violations. Defendant's Memorandum in Support

of Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment at 2 ("Def's Mem.").2

He orally informed an investigator that he had been fined for

theft from a video store. Id. at 2. In fact, Defendant was

convicted of grand theft in 1992 and sentenced to one year

probation and a $250 fine. Answer at 2. In addition, Defendant

was arrested for petty theft in February 1994 for stealing $300

from his employer and sentenced to 10 days in jail, served over 10

consecutive Sundays, and three years probation. Id. at 2.

Defendant was on probation when his application was approved. Id.

at 3. 

According to Defendant, his INS examiner, Wendy Plane

("Plane"), had noted his criminal offenses during the interview,

but did not correct Defendant's form. Def's Mem. at 2. Plane, in

a deposition, conceded that it was possible she simply forgot. 

Case 3:04-cv-04520-SC Document 31 Filed 10/20/05 Page 2 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 3

Def's Mem., Ex. 1 at 23. 

The Government filed a complaint to revoke Defendant's

naturalization. In response to the Answer, the Government filed a

motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) to strike

Defendant's affirmative defenses. The Court granted the motion as

to two of the defenses and denied the motion as to one, allowing

Defendant the opportunity to use the affirmative defense of

estoppel. 

The Government brings this motion for partial summary

judgment on Counts I and II of the Complaint. In Count I, the

Government alleges that Defendant, because of his criminal

history, was not possessed of good character, and was therefore

ineligible for naturalization. In Count II, the Government

alleges that Defendant, because he was on parole when he applied

for citizenship, was ineligible to be naturalized. The Government

contends that because of these facts the Defendant's citizenship

was illegally procured. 

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate only "if the pleadings,

depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,

together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no

genuine issue as to any material fact." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,

477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). A genuine issue of fact exists when the

non-moving party produces evidence on which a reasonable trier of

fact could find in its favor viewing the record as a whole in

light of the evidentiary burden the law places on that party. 

Case 3:04-cv-04520-SC Document 31 Filed 10/20/05 Page 3 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 4

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252-56 (1986). 

Summary judgment is therefore appropriate against a party "who

fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of

an element essential to the party's case, and on which that party

will bear the burden of proof at trial." Celotex, 477 U.S. at

322-23. The more implausible the claim or defense asserted by the

opposing party, the more persuasive its evidence must be to avoid

summary judgment, see Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith

Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986), but "[t]he evidence of the

non-moving party is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences

are to be drawn in its favor." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255. 

IV. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff contends that Defendant was ineligible to receive

citizenship because he was not of good moral character and was on

probation when he applied for citizenship. Defendant contends

that the Government is estopped from revoking his citizenship. 

Specifically, Defendant contends that he "relied upon the

approval, and more than nine years elapsed when he first learned

that his citizenship must be revoked." Def's Mem. at 4. 

The Constitution directly grants Congress legislative

authority over matters of naturalization. U.S. CONST. art. I, 

§ 8, cl. 4. The authority of the Federal Courts over these

matters is tightly tethered by congressional statutes. The United

States Supreme Court puts it thus:

An alien who seeks political rights as a member of this

Nation can rightfully obtain them only upon the terms and

conditions specified by Congress. Courts are without

Case 3:04-cv-04520-SC Document 31 Filed 10/20/05 Page 4 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 5

authority to sanction changes or modifications; their duty is

rigidly to enforce the legislative will in respect of a

matter so vital to the public welfare.

United States v. Ginsberg, 243 U.S. 472, 474-475 (1917). 

The Supreme Court, having said this, has also declared that

the "Government carries a heavy burden of proof in a proceeding to

divest a naturalized citizen of his citizenship." United States

v. Fedorenko, 449 U.S. 490, 505 (1981), citing Costello v. United

States, 365 U.S. 265, 269 (1961). "The evidence justifying

revocation of citizenship must be clear, unequivocal, and

convincing and not leave the issue in doubt." Id., citing

Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118, 125 (1943). 

"At the same time...there must be strict compliance with all

the congressionally imposed prerequisites to the acquisition of

citizenship. Failure to comply with any of these conditions

renders the certificate of citizenship 'illegally procured,' and

naturalization that is unlawfully procured can be set aside." Id.

at 506. 

A. Count I

An applicant for citizenship must be a person of "good moral

character," as defined by statute. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1427(a) and

(f)(3). An applicant shall not be regarded as such a person if he

has been convicted, or admits to having committed, a "crime

involving moral turpitude." 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I). 

Crimes of theft are presumed to involve moral turpitude. See

Gutierrez-Chavez v. INS, 8 F.3d 26, 26 (9th Cir. 1993).

Defendant concedes that he was convicted of petty theft and

Case 3:04-cv-04520-SC Document 31 Filed 10/20/05 Page 5 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

 There are additional requirements for estoppel to apply. 

The party to be estopped must have "made a knowing false

representation or concealment of material facts to a party ignorant

of the facts, with the intention that the other party should rely

6

grand theft. Answer at 2. Because this disqualifies him for

being a person good character, Defendant was ineligible for

citizenship when he applied for it. 

B. Count II

Defendant concedes that his probation did not end until

February 1997 and was thus on probation on the date his

application was approved. Id. at 3. 

"An application will not be approved until after the

probation, parole, or suspended sentence has been completed." 

8 C.F.R. § 316.10(c)(1). According to this regulation, the INS 

was without authority to grant citizenship to Defendant.

C. Equitable Estoppel

The doctrine of equitable estoppel applies against the

government only if the government engages in "affirmative

misconduct going beyond mere negligence." Mukherjee v. INS, 793

F.2d 1006, 1008-1009 (9th Cir. 1986). Furthermore, "estoppel will

apply only where the government's wrongful act will cause a

serious injustice and the public's interest will not suffer undue

damage by the imposition of liability." Id.3 

Case 3:04-cv-04520-SC Document 31 Filed 10/20/05 Page 6 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

on it." Mukherjee, 793 F.2d at 1008, citing Jaa v. INS, 779 F.2d

569, 571 (9th Cir. 1986). 

7

Defendant concedes that Plane "did not give this interview

needed attention because she had to interview 23-25 persons every

day, a high caseload for her." Def's Mem. at 3. Defendant also,

rather incongruously, states that Plane's actions "suggest that

she was incompetent and grossly negligent." Id. at 10. 

The Court rejects this defense. The Court finds that,

believing Defendant's evidence as true and drawing every favorable

inference in his favor, Plane's actions do not rise to the level

of affirmative misconduct. According to the facts the Court

considered along with Defendant's own assertions, Plane's act was

an oversight, possibly attributable to her having to interview

roughly 25 persons per day. Id. Also, taking Defendant's

evaluation of Plane's actions as true, gross negligence and

incompetence are not sufficient to support a finding of

affirmative misconduct, which requires that the Government "either

intentionally or recklessly mislead[] the claimant." Michigan

Express, Inc., v. United States, 374 F.3d 424, 427 (6th Cir.

2004). 

Furthermore, the significance of the public interest cannot

be ignored. The question of on whom and how citizenship is

conferred is of the highest concern. The public has an interest

in admitting to citizenship only those persons who are possessed

Case 3:04-cv-04520-SC Document 31 Filed 10/20/05 Page 7 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 8

of good moral character. Congress, in whose hands the

Constitution has placed authority over this process, has seen fit

to serve the public's interest by excluding persons who have

unfitted themselves for citizenship by committing various crimes. 

The INS is charged with the strict enforcement of congressional

procedures and requirements in this area. The Federal Courts,

likewise, must strictly enforce these requirements. 

The Court has evidence, as described above, that Defendant

inaccurately answered a crucial question on his application form. 

Though he may have been truthful at his interview, his failure to

correctly and truthfully fill out his application form is a

serious error. Whatever the actions of the INS, the Court regards

this act as a failure to comply with congressionally imposed

prerequisites to the acquisition of citizenship, thus rendering

his certificate of citizenship illegally procured. 

A Federal Court, if it finds that citizenship was illegally

procured, will revoke and set aside the order admitting that

person to citizenship and cancel the certificate of citizenship. 

8 U.S.C. § 1451(a). 

The Court finds that, for the reasons listed above,

Defendant's citizenship was illegally procured and, accordingly,

orders that the order and certificate conferring citizenship be

rescinded.

Case 3:04-cv-04520-SC Document 31 Filed 10/20/05 Page 8 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 9

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS the

Government's motion for summary judgment as to Counts I and II of

the Complaint. 

Defendant's certificate of citizenship, No. 22 005 355, is

CANCELLED. The order by the Attorney General of the United States

admitting him to United States citizenship is 

REVOKED and SET ASIDE. 

The Court further orders that JUDGMENT is entered forever

restraining and enjoining Defendant from claiming any rights,

privileges, or advantages under any document which evidences

United States citizenship obtained as a result of Defendant's May

24, 1995 naturalization.

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:04-cv-04520-SC Document 31 Filed 10/20/05 Page 9 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 10

The Court further orders that JUDGMENT is entered requiring

Defendant to surrender his Certificate of Naturalization and any

copies thereof in his possession (and to make good faith efforts

to recover and then surrender any copies thereof that he knows are

in possession of others) to the Attorney General immediately; and

return any other indicia of United States citizenship, and any

copies thereof in his possession (and to make good faith efforts

to recover and then surrender any copies thereof that he knows are

in the possession of others), including, but not limited to,

United States passport, voter registration card, and other voting

documents.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 20, 2005

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-04520-SC Document 31 Filed 10/20/05 Page 10 of 10