### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT J anu ary 4, 2005 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK

Ho no ra ble Ric ha rd D. Cud ahy , Unit e d St ate s Ci rc uit Judg e fo r t

he Se ve nth

Cir c uit , * sitti ngby desig nation. [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

N o. 04- 1014 4

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 2- 22 05 7- CV-AJ UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us LIONEL JEAN-BAPTISTE, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ___ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ___ (J an ua ry4, 200 5) Be fo re BI RC H , KRA V IT CH and C U D A H Y , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. * CUD AH Y, Circuit Judge:2

T he r igh t t o a cquir e U nit ed S ta te s c iti ze nshi p is pr ec iou s and c ove te d and i ts su cces sf ul ex erci se rare r th an m an y asp ira nt s wo ul d h op e fo r. See F edorenko v. United States , 449 U . S. 490 , 505 ( 1981 ). A cc or din gly , w he n th e gove rn m en t se ek s to str ip c iti ze nshi p f ro m one w ho h as a cquir ed

it , de na tur al iz at ion proceedings can have “ severe and un settling consequences.” Id. H er e, w e ad dr es s the que sti on whe the r a natur al iz ed c iti ze n w ho c om

m itt ed c er ta in unlaw fu l a ct s dur ing the statut or

y pe ri od pri or

to takin g th e oa th o f al le gianc e but f or w hic h he w as ind ic te d, arr es te d and c onvi ct ed after na tur al iz at ionstands to l ose his pr ec iou s acq ui si ti on forlac k o f go odm or al ch arac te r. Unfo rtu na te ly, th e an swe r is y es . I. L ion el Je an -B ap tis te is a H ai tian c iti ze n and n at ive w ho w as paro le d in to the United States on Septem ber 10, 1980, and becam e a per m anent resident here on J anuary

1, 198 2. H e ap pli ed

f or na tur al iz at ionon N ove m be r 21, 199 4 onthe gr ound that he ha d be enalaw fu l pe rm an en t r es ide nt f or a t l ea st f ive y ears . H is ap pli catio n w as appr ove d onF eb ru ar y 13, 199 6, and o n Apr il 23, 199 6, Je an Bap ti st e to okth e o at h o f al le gi an ce an d b ecame a natur al iz edcit iz en . Unbeknownst to imm igration officials, howe ver, Jean-Ba ptiste had entang led him self in a conspiracy

to distrib ute crac k cocaine at som e point between Mar ch 17 and M ar ch23, 199 5, in vio la tio n of 23 U . S. C. § 84 1( a) (1 ), 18 U . S. C. § 2, andIn its first complaint filed on J uly 15, 2002, the g overnme nt initi ally soug ht to revoke 1 J ean- Ba ptiste’s citiz enship on two other grounds. Count 1 of the complaint alleg ed that JeanBa ptiste had illeg ally

procur ed his citizenship because he had la cked “ g ood moral cha rac ter” duringthe re quisite five-year period in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a) a nd was statutorily

barr ed fr om e sta bli sh ingg oo d mo ra l c ha

ra c te r u nd e r 8 U. S.C § 11 01 (f

)( 6) be c a us e he ha d p ro vid e d f

a lse testimony under oath. Count 2 of the complaint alleg ed that Jean-B aptiste had proc ured natura liz ation throug h willful misreprese ntation and conc ealment of his criminal conduct a

nd that his citiz enship should be re voked under 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a). In an ame nded complaint filed on Dec ember

11, 2002, the g overnme nt added a third count alleg ing that J ean- Ba ptiste was barr ed fr om establishing “ g ood moral cha rac ter” under 8 U .S.C. § 1101(f) bec ause he had committed unlawful ac ts adverse ly ref lectingupon his moral char acte r duringthe statutory period. F inally , on May

27, 2003, the g overnme nt filed a sec ond amende d complaint dismiss ing Counts 1 and 2 of the first complaint, and e lected to pr ocee d only with Count 3. 3 21 U . S. C. § 84 6. Je an -B ap tis te w as ind ic te d f or thi s c ri m e by

agr an d j ur

y on Oc tober 11, 1996, wa s arre sted on October 30, 1996, and wa s convicted bya j ury on J anuary

8, 199 7. H e the re af

te r re ce ive d ase nte nc e of 97 m onths’ im pr is on m en t, fi ve y ears of s up erv is edrel eas e an d a$5 0,0 00 fin e. Co nse que ntl y , the U nit ed S ta te s go ve rn m en t so ught to re voke Je an Ba pti ste ’ s c iti ze nshi p onthe gr ound that he w as barr ed

f ro m e sta bli shi ng “ good m or al c hara ct er ” unde r 8 U . S. C. § 11 01( f) be ca use he ha d c om

m itt ed unl aw fu l ac ts r ef le ct ing a dve rs el y

upo n hi s m or al c hara ct er dur ing the statut or

y pe ri od. 1 The district court granted summ ary j udgm ent for the governm ent, f indin g that Je an -B ap tis te m

ust be de na tur al iz ed

f or il le ga lly pr oc ur ing his c iti ze nshi p inthe fa ce of c om m iss iondur ing the statut or y pe ri od o f ac ts s uf

fi ci en t t o ne ga te and be lie asho w ing of

goo d m or al c hara ct er . T he dis tr ic t c ourt st ay ed the or de r of de na tur al iz at ionso tha t Je an -B ap tis te c oul d purs ue thi s a ppe al . W e re vie wtheThe district cour t also relied on 8 C.F .R. §316.10(a)( 1), which state s that “[a]n applicant 2 for naturalization bears the bur den of de monstrating that, duringthe statutorily presc ribed pe riod, he or she has bee n and continues to be a per son of g ood moral cha rac ter. This includes the period be tween the examination and the administration of the oath of a lleg iance .” 4 dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of

sum m ar y j udgm en t t o th e gove rn m en t de novo . O ’F erre ll v. United States , 25 3 F .3d12 57 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). II. A n a ppl ic an t who s ee ks t o be co m e a na tur al iz ed U nit ed S ta te s c iti ze n m

ust fu lly c om ply w ithse ve ra l st at

uto ry pr er equis ite s be fo re takin g th e oa th o f al le gi an ce. Fe dorenko , 449 U. S. at 506. T hese requirem ents dem and that ap pli cants f

or na tur al iz at ionr es ide c ont inu ousl y in the U nit ed

S tate s f or a t l ea st fi ve y ears a ft er

be ing law fu lly

a dm itt ed f or pe rm an en t r es ide nc e; m ai nta in phy sic al pr es en ce in the U nit ed S ta te s f or the f ive y ears im

m ed ia te ly pr ec ed ing the ap pli catio n date ; r es ide in the U nit ed S tate s “ fr om

the da te of

the appl ic at ionup t o the ti m e of

a dm iss ionto ci tiz en shi p” ; and d ur ing a ll suc h pe ri ods es ta bli sh and m ai nta in “ good

m or al c hara ct er . ” 8 U . S. C. § 14 27( a) . I n vi ewof the se re qui re m en ts, the dis tr ic t c ourt c onc lud ed that a ppl ic an ts h ad

to m ai nta in g ood m or al c hara ct er

a t l ea st f ro m the da te on whic h th e ap pli catio n w as f ile d un til the da te the oa th o f al le gianc e w as take n. W e co nc ur in thi s in te rp re ta tio n. 2 O nc e ap pli cants have c om pli ed w iththe ard

uous na tur al iz at ion5

re qui re m en ts and h av e take n th e oa th o f al le gianc e, the y are , to use aba se ba ll an al ogy , sa fe a t ho m e plate . I f, how ev er , e vid en ce late r co m es to lig ht s ugge sti ng that c iti ze nshi p w as il le ga lly pr oc ur ed , the gov er

nm en t m ay

c ha lle nge the na tu ral iz edcit iz en ’s cert ifi cat e o f ci ti zen sh ip an d d em an d i ts can cel la ti on . Fe dorenko , 449 U . S. a t 50 5. B ut the gov er nm en t be ar s ahe av y

bur de n of

pr oof in de na tur al iz at ionpr oc ee din gs, and a c ourt sh oul d on ly

r ev oke c iti ze nshi p if

the gove rn m en t pr es en ts “ cl ear, une qui voc al , and c onvi nc ing ” ev ide nc e es ta bli shi ng th atcit iz en sh ip was i ll eg al ly pro cu red . U nit ed Sta tes v . Koziy , 782 F . 2d 1 314, 1318 ( 11th C ir . 198 4) ( ci tin g Fe dorenko , 449 U . S. a t 50 5) . Whe n th e gove rn m en t suc ce ed s inc ar

ry ing thi s he av y

bur de n, adis tr ic t c ourt m ust re voke c iti ze nshi p “ on the gr ound

that su chor de r an d c er

tif ic at e of na tur al iz at ionw er e ill eg al ly pr oc ur ed . ” 8 U . S. C. § 14 51( a) . I n th es e ci rc um stanc es , ac ourt l ac ks d isc re tio n bu t i s co m

pe ll edto en te r a jud gm en t o f de na tu ral iz at io n. Fe dorenko , 449 U. S. at 517. A. Be fo re a ddr es sin g th e subs tanc e of thi s c as e, w e not e that on e of Je an Ba pti ste ’ s arg um en ts i s no t r el ev an t t o th e ins tant a ppe al . Je an -B ap tis te a sse rt s that the iss ue be fo re us i s whe the r he il le ga lly pr oc ur ed his c iti ze nshi p by

w ill fu lly an d kn ow ing ly

m isr ep re se nti ng o r co nc ea lin g am at er ia l f ac t duri ng the6

na tur al iz at ionpr oc es s. B ut, to the c ontrary , thi s c as e doe s inf ac t r equir e us t o de te rm ine w he the r Je an -B ap tis te pur sue d c iti ze nshi p w ith out pos se ssi ng the req ui si te go odm or al ch arac te r an d n ot to de te rm in e whe th er h e co m m it te d fr au d. Th er ef o re , t h e o n l y fa ct re l ev an tt o th e c o u n tco n t ai n edi nth e g o v ern m en t ’s se co nd am en de d c om

pla int is w he the r Je an -B ap tis te , dur ing the statut or y pe ri od, co m m itt ed the c ri m e of

c onsp ir ing to dis tr ibu te c oc ai ne , the re by ne ga tin g hi s poss ession o f good m oral chara cter. B. Si nc e Je an -B ap tis te c om

m itt ed his unl aw fu l a ct s whil e his na tur al iz at ion application was pending , but w as convicted of thos e offe nses after he becam e a naturalized citizen, the specific question here is whether the co m m iss ion , in contrast to the co nv ic tio n , of a cr im e negates good character during th e cr itical statut or y pe ri od. Whil e the I m

m igr at ionand N at

ur al iz at ionA ct

( IN A ) doe s no t spe ci fi ca lly

de fi ne w ha t “ good

m or al c hara ct er ” is, it

qui te e xpl ic itl y

state s wha t i t is not . A m ong the e ntr ie s inanon -e xhaust ive li st o f cate gor ie s of pe rs ons w ho cannot e sta bli sh g ood m or al c hara ct er f or pur pose s of the statut e ar e ind ivi dua ls convicted of traf ficking in con trolled sub stances and thos e convicted of other cr im es . 8 U . S. C. § 11 01( f) (3 ), ( 8) . Whil e thi s se ct ionis not dir ec tly on p oin t t o the pr es en t f

ac ts b ec au se it

spe ak s to co nv ic tio n an d no t t o co m m iss ion of a c rim e,7

it doe s il lus tr at e w ha t ty

pe s of unl aw fu l be havio r m ay

bar anappl ic an t f

ro m es ta bli shi ng g ood m or al c hara ct er in that c ont ex t, part ic ularl y in vie wof

the expansiv e “ catch-a ll” provisio n in the last section of 8 U. S. C. § 110 1(f). T he final section of 8 U. S. C. § 110 1(f) c ontains a “ catch-a ll” provisio n which cautions that

“ the f ac t tha t any

pe rs on i s no t w ith in any

of the f or eg oin g c la sse s sh al l no t preclude a f

indin g that for such reasons such person is or wa s not of go od m oral charac ter. ” N um er ous oth er

statut or y and r eg ulator

y pr ovi sio ns a lso sug ge st the contou rs of a def

initio n of goodm oral chara cter. U nder 8 U. S. C. § 118 2(a)( 2), w hic h is r ef

er en ce d in8 U . S. C. § 11 01( f) (3 ), a lie ns who are ina dm iss ibl e to citizenship on crim inal and related grounds in clude those who comm it or conspire to c om m it a cr im e of

m or al tur pit ude a s w el l a s a lie ns who a ssi st o the rs in tr af fi ck ing in co ntr oll ed

sub stanc es . I n a ddi tio n, 8 C . F. R. § 31 6. 10, ar eg ulatio n ba se d on8 U . S. C. § 11 01( f) , se ts f orth a ddi tio na l c at eg or ie s of pe rs ons w ho cannot establish goodm oral chara cter, includin g applicants con victed of an ag gr av at edfel on y , a cri m e o f m or al tu rp it ud e o r a co nt ro ll edsubs ta nc e v io la ti on . T he “ catc h- al l” pr ovi sio n of 8 C . F. R § 316 . 10( b) state s th at appl ic an ts who h av e co m m itted ac ts a dve rs el y r ef le ct ing on m or al c hara ct er dur ing the statut or

y pe ri od can no t es tabl is h t he req ui si te go odm or al ch arac te r.Se eIn reKho ur n , 21 I& N . Dec . 1041 (B IA 1997) (holdingthat distribution of cocaine 4 in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), c onstitut es a c rime involving mora l turpitude under 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(2) (A)( ii)). 8 Jean-Baptiste does not denythat he wa s required to m aintain goo d m oral ch ar ac te r fr om

the da te of

appl ic at ionunt il he too k th e oa th o f al le gianc e, but he instead claim s that he did po ss es s g oo d m or al ch arac te r th ro ug ho ut th is pe rio d. Je an -B ap tis te w as c onvi ct ed of kno w ing ly

and i nte nti ona lly

c onsp ir ing to poss es s crac k c oc ai ne wit h i nt en t t o d is tri bu te . This off en se is an ag gr av at edfel on y , a cr im e of m or al tur pit ude and a

c ontro lle d su

bst an ce s vi olatio n–a ll cate gor ie s of 4 of fe nse s th e co m

m iss ionof

w hic h bar anappl ic an t f or na tur al iz at ionf

ro m es tabl is hi ng th e req ui si te go odm or al ch arac te r. The district court nar

rowe d the issu e by

finding th at Jean-Ba

ptiste’s f ailure to e sta bli sh g ood m or al c hara ct er w as not a s an a lie n w ho w as convicted of or w ho adm itted traff

icking in controlled sub stances under 8 U. S. C. § 110 1(f)( 3) or as an al ie n co nv ic te d of

an a ggr av at ed

f el ony und er 8 U . S. C. § 11 01( f) (8 ), be fo re the takin g of the oa th o f al le gianc e. I nde ed , a t or be fo re the ti m e of

his na tur al iz at ion Jean-Baptiste had not been ind icted for, m uch less convi cted of, a drug offense, no r is th ere e vi de nc e to su gg es t t ha t h e h adad m it te d s uc h a n a ctat t ha t t im e. Thu s, t he di st ric t co ur t s ei zedup on th e fi na l “ cat ch -al l” sec ti on of 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (f )( 8) , in w hic h C ongr es s de le ga te d auth or ity to the f orm er I N S to s et

f orth9

“ oth er r ea sons ” af

fe ct ing de te rm inatio ns o f good m or al c hara ct er . P ur suant t o th is au th or it y , Con gr es s d el eg at edto th e Att orne y Gene ral au th or it y

to is su e 8 C.F.R. § 316. 10, inc lud ing §31 6. 10( b) (3 )( iii ), w hic h st at es that “ the appl ic an t sh al l be fo un d t o l ackgo odm or al ch arac te r if , du rin g t he st atut ory

pe rio d, t he ap pl ic an t . . . (iii) Com m itted unl aw ful acts that adversely ref lect upon th e applicant’ s m oral ch ar ac te r, or

w as c onvi ct ed

or im pr iso ne d f

or suc h a ct s, a lth oughthe a ct s do not fa ll w ith in the pur

vie wof § 31 6. 10( b) (1 ) or

( 2) . ” T his r eg ulatio n is e nti tle d to de fere nc e. See Chevron U. S.A ., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, I nc. , 467 U.S . 837, 843-44 (1984) (“ if Congress has explicitlyleft a gap for the agency to fill, there is an express delegation of autho rity to the agency

to elucidate a specific provision of the statute by regulation.”) Further, as the district court no te d, t hi s d et erm in at io n i s s up po rte d b y cas e la w. See, e. g., United States v. Ki ang , 200 3 W L 244 95 ( 6thCi r. 200 3) ( unpu bli she d) ( “ 8 C . F. R. § 31 6. 10( c) (1 ) represe nts a reasonable interpretation of the statutory requirem ent of goodm oral ch arac te r an d i s n ot ul tra vi res ”), D eluc a v . A shc rof t , 203 F . Su

pp. 2d 1 276, 127 9 (M . D . A la . 200 2) ( 8 C . F. R. § 31 6. 10 i s af ai r int er pr et at ionof

Co ngr es s’ int en tio ns) ; Ji m en ez

v . E ddy , 153 F . Su

pp. 2d 1 105, 110 7 ( D . A rk . 200 1) ( statin g that 8 C.F .R. § 316.10(c)(1) is not an arbitrar y or capric ious in terpretation of 8 C. F. R. § 31 6( a) and § 110 1( f) ). A cc or din gly , w e af fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s w el l-10

reasoned determ ination that, beca use he com

m itted a drug offense as established by his later conviction, Jean-Ba ptiste was prec luded un der 8 U .S .C. § 1101 (f) (8), as elaborated in 8 C. F. R. § 316 .10(b)(3)( iii), f rom establishin g goo d m oral ch arac te r, an d was th eref or e b arre d fr om

acq ui rin g c it iz en sh ip . B. Inan a tte m

pt t o e sc ap e the c onse que nc es of his c ri m ina l a ct , Je an -B ap tis te ar gue s th at

he is not barr ed by the doc tr ine of

c oll at er al e sto ppe l f

ro m a sse rt ing that he did

not kno wa t the ti m e of

his na tur al iz at ionthat he ha d c om m itt ed a cr im e, and c ont en ds tha t he w oul d no t have kno w n th at part ic ipatio n inthe cocaine conspiracy

wa s a crim e prior to his arre st and conv iction. H owever , sc ie nte r w as an e le m en t of the c ri m e of

w hic h Je an -B ap tis te w as c onvi ct ed , and th is de feat s h is pre se nt cla im of l ackof k no wled ge . Moreover, Jean-Ba

ptiste’s argum ents concerning the do ctrine of collater al es top pe l are a lso f

law ed . C oll at er al e sto ppe l bars a de fe ndant who i s c onvi ct ed in a cr im ina l tri al f

ro m c ont es tin g th is c onvi ct ionin a subs eque nt c ivi l a ct ionw ith res pe ctto is su es ne ces sa ril y de ci de d i n t he cri m in al tri al . See Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez , 372 U . S. 144 , 157 ( 1963 ); In re B ilz er ian , 153 F . 3d 1 278, 1281 ( 11th C ir . 199 8) ( de fe ndant c onvi ct ed of se curi tie s f

ra ud w as c oll at er al ly es top pe d f

ro m c ha lle ngi ng i ssu es li tig at ed in cr im ina l tri al in subs eque nt c ivi l11

ac tio n br ough t by

the S E C) . F or

c oll at er al e sto ppe l t o a

ppl y , the iss ue in que sti on m ust be “ identical in bo th the prior and current action,” the issue m ust have been

“ ac tua lly li tig at ed ” in the c ri m ina l tri al , the de te rm inatio n of the iss ue m

ust have be en“ cr iti ca l and n ec es sary to the j udgm en t i n th e pr ior a ct ion ” an d th e bur de n of persuasion in the subsequ ent action cannot be “ signi ficantly heavier. ” In re B ilz er ian , 153 F . 3d at 12 81. T he dis tr ic t c ourt de te rm ine d th at a ll of the se pr ec ondi tio ns h ad

be ensa tis fi ed

and s ta te d th at

the iss ue that the gov er

nm en t soug ht t o pr ove in the de na tur al iz at ionpr oc ee din g–Je an -B ap tis te ’ s c onsp ir ac y to poss es s c ra ck

c oc ai ne w iththe int en t t o di str ibu te –w as the sam e iss ue it sou ght to prove in the crim inal trial; that Jean-Baptiste’ s com m issio n of this offense wa s ac tua lly li tig at ed and tha t hi s c onvi ct ionw as a ff irm ed on a ppe al ; tha t the com m issio n of the offense w as indeed critical and necessar y to the crim inal j udgm en t; an d th at

the “be y ond a re as ona

ble doubt” standard

c ar ri ed by the gove rn m en t i n th e cr im ina l tri al w as hig he r than it s burd enof “ cl ear, une qui voc al , an d c onvi nc ing e vid en ce ” in the c ivi l de na tur al iz at ionpr oc ee din g. A s am atte r of lawthe re fo re Je an -B ap tis te w as pr ec lud ed f ro m c ha lle ngi ng h is c onvi ct ionor his kn owl ed ge of h av in g c omm it te d t he cri m e. C. In a further attem

pt to retain his citizensh ip, Jean-B aptiste alleges that there12

ar e suf fi ci en t e xte nuatin g c ir cum stanc es to pr ec lud e de na tur al iz at ionf or la ck of good m or al c hara ct er . H e as se rt s th at , if de na tur al iz ed

and d ep orte d to H ai ti, he will be placed on a governm ent flight with other Haitian deportees w ith crim inal co nvi ct ion s and the n de ta ine d and i nc ar ce rate d by the H ai tian go ve rn m en t i n pr iso ns “unf

it fo r hum anha

bit at ion ” be ca

use he is a “pari ah ” w ho h as “ los t hi s ch an ce to liv e in the U nit ed S ta te s. ” ( D ef

en dant’ s B r. a t 15 ). Je an -B ap tis te a lso co nte nds that hi s w if

e an d c hil dr enw ill suf

fe r “ ex tr em e hard shi p” a s ar es ult of his de po rta ti on , con fin em en t an d e ve nt ua l d eat h i n aHait ia n p ris on . ( Id .) . Though we ce rtainly

do not take Jean-B aptiste’ s concerns about future hard shi ps l igh tly , the y

do n ot i nvol ve “ ex te nuatin g c ir cum stanc es , ” w hic h m ust pertain to his culp ability

for the drug crim e, and its negative im pact on his m oral ch arac te r. See 8 C . F. R. § 31 6. 10( b) (3 ); B L ACK ’ S L A W D I CT I ONARY 236 (7 th e d. 1999 ). Case law discuss ions o f extenuating circum stances in the context of a de te rm inatio n of

goo d m or al c hara ct er

e sta bli sh tha t su chc ir cum stanc es m ust pe rt ai n to the r ea sons sho w ing la ck of goo d c hara ct er , inc lud ing a ct s ne ga tin g good c hara ct er , not

to the c onse que nc es of

the se m atte rs , inc lud ing the co ns eque nc es of d en atur al iz at io n. See, e. g., Ric o v. INS , 262 F . Su pp. 2d 6 (E . D . N . Y . 200 3) ( fi ndi ng tha t a na tur al iz at ionappl ic an t who d id n ot s how ex te nuatin g c ir cum stanc es a ff ec tin g hi s D W I co nvi ct ionin the statut or y pe ri od13

co uld not e sta bli sh g ood m or al c hara ct er be ca use he f ai le d to a cc ep t r es pons ibi lity fo r his c ri m e, f

ai le d to e sta

bli sh a c la im ed r eh ab ili ta tio n and l ac ke d c an dor ); In re B rie dis , 238 F. Supp. 149 (N. D. Ill. 1965 ) (discussing ext enuating circum stances that m ad e the a dul te ro us c ondu ct of the na tur al iz at ionappl ic an t “ m er el y te ch nic al ”) ; P et iti on o

f Sp ak, 164 F. Supp. 257 (D. C. Pa. 1958 ) (f indin g that na tur al iz at ionappl ic an t l ac ke d go od m or al c hara ct er and n o e xte nuatin g ci rc um stanc es e xpl ai ne d hi s f ai lur e to p ro vid e supp ort f or his m en ta lly

de fi ci en t ch ild f or thr ee and o ne -h al f y ears ). Je an -B ap tis te ha s th er ef or e fa ile d to e sta

bli sh extenuating circum stances going to the reasons for his denaturalization. H e m ay pur sue f urthe r his se ri ous co nc er

ns n ote d a

bove if he be co m es sub

j ec t t o ad m in is tra ti ve rem ov al pro ceed in gs un de r 8 U.S.C . § 1 22 9a . IV. In the words of the late Suprem e Court Justice Hugo Black, United State s citizenship is certainly

“ no lig ht trifle to be j eopardized.” A fro yi m v . R usk, 387 U. S. 267-68 (19 67). N onetheless, upon determ ining that a naturalized citize n illegally procured citizenship, the district court lacked discretion to withholdan order of denaturalization, with all its negative consequences for the denaturalized person and his fam ily . Beca use Jean-Baptiste, through his comm issio n of a se rio us cri m e, la ck edth e g oo d m or al ch arac te r req ui si te forna tu ral iz at io n, we14

m ust f ind und er 8 C . F. R. § 31 6. 10( b) (3 )( iii ) that hi s c iti ze nshi p w as il le ga lly pr oc ur ed , andso we m

us t AFFI RM t he jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ctco ur t.