N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JAM AL ATALLA, M .D., Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. UNITED STATES C ITIZENSHIP AND IM M IGR ATION SER

VIC ES; JOHN KR AM ER , Distric t Dire c tor of Unite d State s C itiz e nship a

nd Im m i gration Se rvic e s, De fe nda

nts - Appe lla

nts. No. 11-16987

D.C . No. 2:09-c v-01610-NVW M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Ne il V. W ake , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 12, 2013 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER

and B YB EE, C i rc u it Judge s, a nd B EISTLINE, C hie f Distric t Judge
. ** 

# FIL ED OCT 02 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.

** The Honora

ble R a lph R . B e istline , C hie f Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ala ska , sitting by de signa tion.De fe nda nts Unite d State s C itiz e nship a nd Im m igration Se rvic e s (USC IS) and its Dire c tor a

ppe a l the judgm e nt of the distric t c ourt following a tria l in fa vor of Ja m a l Ata lla , M .D., in his a c tion brought unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1421(c ), se e king a he aring denov o on the USC IS’ de nia l for la c k of good m ora l c h ara c te r of his natura liz a tion a

p plic a tion. Thedistric t c ourt found tha t Ata l la ha d not give n fa lse te stim ony or give n fa lse te stim ony

with thesubje c tive inte nt to obtain a n im m igration be ne fit, a s USC IS c la im e d , a nd found, inste a d , tha

t Ata lla ha d prove d the re quisitegood m ora l c ha ra c te r and gra

n te d his pe t ition for na

tura l iz ation. In light of the

highly de fe re ntia l sta

nda rd we show to the

distric t c ourt’ s findings of fa c t , we a ffirm
. On a ppe a l, USC IS a d

va n c e s two a

rgum e nts. (1) The distric t c ourt c le arly e rre d in de te rm ining tha

t Ata lla did not provide

fa l se te stim ony

for the purpose of obta ining a

n im m i gration be ne fit during his thre e natura liz ation inte rvie ws, a nd, (2) The distric t c ourt c om m i tte d le ga l e rror in pre c luding a s wa ive d the gove rnm e nt’ s de fe nse tha t Ata lla c om m itte d a c rim e involving m

ora l turpitude (C IM T) by

providing fa lse te s tim ony to the gove rnm e nt re ga

rding his re lationship with orga niz a tions tha

t the U.S. gove rnm e nt la

be le d a s te rorrist orga

niz ations a fte r Se pte m be r 11, 2001.

21. To be e ligible for natura liz ation, a n a pplic an t m

ust e sta blish, a m ong othe r things, good m

ora l c ha ra c t e r. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1427(a )(3). “No pe rson sha ll be re ga rde d a s . . . a

pe rson of good m ora l c ha ra c te r who . . . ha s give n fa lse te stim ony for the purpose of obta ining a ny [im m igration] be n e fits.” 8 U.S.C . § 1101(f)(6). A finding of good m

o ra l c ha ra c te r is a “ que s tion of fa c t,” Yue n J ung v . Barbe r , 184 F.2d 491, 497 (9th C ir. 1950), tha t c annot be “ se t a side unle ss c le arly e rrone ous . . .” Fe d. R . C iv. P. 52(a )(6). This c ourt “ m a y not disturb the

distric t c ourt’ s findings of fa c t unle ss [it] ha [s] the de finite an d firm c onvic tion tha

t the c o urt ha s m a de a m ista ke .” Unite d State

s v . Hov se pian , 422 F.3d 883, 885 (9th C ir. 2005) (e n ba nc ). The distric t c ourt’ s finding ne e d only be “ p la usible ” to be uphe ld: “ If the distric t c ourt’ s a c c o unt of the e vide nc e is pla usible in light of the

re c ord vie we d in its e ntire t y , the c ourt of a

ppe a ls m ay

not re ve rse it e ve n though c o nvinc e d tha t ha d it be e n sitting a s the trie r of fa c t, it would ha ve we ighe d the e vide nc e diffe re ntly .” Ande rson v . C

i ty of Be s se me r C ity , N .C
. , 470 U.S. 564, 573-74 (1985). “This sta nda rd pla inly doe s not e ntitle a

re vie w ing c ourt to re ve rse the finding of the trie r of fa c t sim

ply be c a use it is c onvinc e d tha

t it would ha

ve de c ide d the c a s e diffe re ntly .” Id. a t 573. The re c ord shows tha

t Ata lla answe re d the que stions pose d to him c are fully and, a t tim e s, a m biguously
. For its pa

rt, the gove rnm e nt’ s a

pproa c h wa s im

pre c ise 3and m

uddle d. USC IS offic e rs m angle d the te xt of que s tions during Ata lla ’ s two re c o rde d inte rvie ws, fa ile d to re c ord or provide c onte m pora ne ous tra nsc ription of his 2006 intervie w, a

n d fa ile d to follow up on som e line s of que stioning during the two re c orde d one s. Upon re vie wing the e vide n c e , the distric t c ourt de te rm ine d tha t Ata lla ha d not give n fa lse te stim ony with thesubje c tive inte nt of obta ining c itiz e nship. On this re c ord, a lthough the Gove rnm e nt pre se nts us with a c lose c a se , we c annot c onc lude tha

t the distric t c ourt’ s a c c ount of thee vide nc e fe ll be low the low thre shold of “

pla usib[ility ] ” e ve n if this c ourt, sitting a s a trie r-of-fa c t, would have c o nc lude d

diffe re ntly
. Se e id. at 573–74. 2. Afte r the c lose of disc ove ry , the gove rnm e nt sought to introduc e an a lte rnative de fe n se tha

t Ata lla c om m itte d a C IM T by providing fa lse te stim ony on his writte n natura liz a t ion a pplic a tion re ga

rding his re lationship with te rrorist orga niz a tions. Thegove rnm e nt wishe d to a rgue that Ata lla ’ s a l le ge d ly fa lse sta te m e nts on his a

pplic a tion we re fa lse sta

te m e n ts to a fe de ra l offic e r unde r 18 U.S.C . § 1001(a )(3) a

nd, thus, c onstitute d a

c rim e involving m

ora l turpitude , m aking Ata lla ine ligiblefor natura liz ation. 8 U.S.C . § 1101(f)(3). The tria l c ourt found the introduc tion of the argum e nt untim e ly and gratuitous. The gove rnm e nt argue s this ruling c o nstitute d le ga l e rror. It did not. It wa s we ll within the distric t c ourt’ s disc re tion to ba

r a s untim e ly

the introduc tion of ne w a c c usat ions of
4c rim ina l a c tivity a fte r the c lose of disc ove ry to a v oid de la y ing a natura l iz ation proc e s s tha

t ha d a lre a dy

spa nne d ne arly

nine y e ars. Se e C

ampbe ll Indus. v . M/V Ge mini , 619 F.2d 24, 27 (9th C ir. 1980). Ac c ordingly , the judgm e nt of the distric t c ourt is AFFIRM E D.

5