In the United States District Court 


for the Western District of Pennsylvania 


) 

HUSSEIN FARHOOD ALMAZIADA WI, ) 

) 

Petitioner ) 

) 

) Civil Action No. lO-20E 

) 

UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND ) 

IMMIGRATION SERVICES (USCIS) ) 

) 

Respondent ) 

) 

MEMORANDUM ORDER 

Pending before the Court is Petitioner Hussein Farhood Almaziadawi's "Petition for De 

Novo Review ofNaturalization Application Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 336.9 and Request for De Novo 

Review" [Doc. #1]. Respondent USCIS filed its Answer to the Petition on May 24, 2010 [Doc. 

#4]. In its Answer, Defendant United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") 

argues that a de novo hearing is not required and requests that the Court instead set up a summary 

judgment briefing schedule, citing in support of its request Abghari v. Gonzales, 596 F.Supp2d 

1336 (C.D. Ca. 2009) wherein the district court decided the merits of a petition for de novo 

review based on a review ofthe parties' cross motions for summary judgment after a 

determination that a de novo hearing was not required under the facts ofthe case even though 

requested by the petitioner. 

8 U.S.C. § 1421 (c) outlines the procedure for judicial review as follows: 

A person whose application for naturalization under this subchapter is denied, after 

a hearing before an immigration officer under section 144 7( a)lof this Title, may 

ISection 1447 provides: "If, after an examination under section 1446 of this title, an 

application for naturalization is denied, the applicant may request a hearing before an 

Case 1:10-cv-00020-MBC Document 5 Filed 05/26/10 Page 1 of 3
seek review ofsuch denial before the United States district court for the district in 

which such person resides in accordance with chapter 7 ofTitle 5. Such review 

shall be de novo, and the court shall make its own findings offact and conclusions 

of law and shall, at the request ofthe petitioner, conduct a hearing de novo on the 

application. 

Id. Summary jUdgment may be appropriate where the adjudication of the action turns on a 

question oflaw. See Chan v. Gantner, 464 F.3d 289, 295-96 (2d. Cir. 2006) (summary judgment 

appropriate where no genuine issue of material fact exists such as when statutory bar precludes a 

finding of good moral character); Abghari, 596 F .Supp.2d at 1344 (district court may resolve a 

pure question oflaw on summary judgment without bench trial or evidentiary hearing). 

Based upon the allegations contained in the Complaint, the main issue in this case appears 

to be as follows: whether as a result ofMr Almaziadawi: (1) answering "no" to a number of 

questions asked of him by USCIS concerning whether he'd been cited or charged with committing 

any crime or offense and/or been convicted of a crime or offense, and (2) not telling the USCIS 

that he had received a traffic citation for reckless driving, he falls within 8 U.S.C. § l101(f)(6) 

such that he is barred from being able to demonstrate that he is a person of good moral character 

and therefore, is ineligible to become a naturalized citizen. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(6) provides: 

For the purposes ofthis chapter-­

No person shall be regarded as, or found to be, a person of good moral character 

who, during the period for which good moral character is required to be 

established, is, or was-- ... 

(6) one who has given false testimony for the purpose of obtaining any benefits 

under this chapter; 

Id. 

To make this determination we will have to decide whether Mr. Almaziadawi had the 

subjective intent to deceive the USCIS when he answered the above referenced questions in the 

immigration officer." 8 U.S.C. § 1447. 

2 


Case 1:10-cv-00020-MBC Document 5 Filed 05/26/10 Page 2 of 3
negative and failed to tell the USCIS about the traffic citation, and we find that this determination 

is a question of fact requiring a de novo hearing. See Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759, 782, 

108 S.Ct. 1537 (1988) (question of whether in making the misrepresentations Kungys possessed 

the subjective intent of thereby obtaining immigration or naturalization benefits must be resolved 

by the trier of fact); Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 288, 102 S.Ct. 1781, 1789-1790 

(1982) (issues of intent are factual matters for the trier of fact). 

Accordingly, this 26th day of May, 2010, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 

DECREED that a status conference shall be held in this case on Wednesday, June 9, 2010 at 

10:00 AM. in Suite 8170, U.S. Courthouse, Pittsburgh, PA 15219. Counsel can participate by 

phone with advance notice to the Court's chambers in Pittsburgh. 

tfc,.~ ,\_~ Maurice B. Cohill, Jr.rII 

Senior District Court Judge 

3 


Case 1:10-cv-00020-MBC Document 5 Filed 05/26/10 Page 3 of 3