# United States Court of Appeals

f or the Fifth Circuit

No. 20

- 20631 Summary Calendar

United States of America,

Plaintiff

— Appellee ,

versus

Chijioke Victor Okoro, also known as Chiji V. Okoro, also known as Victor Okoro,

Defendant

— Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas No. 4:19

- CV

- 4837

Before Davis, Stewart, and Dennis, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam : *

Chi j ioke Victor Okoro appeals the district court’s order granting the Government’s Rule 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Okoro was

* Pursuant to 5th Cir cuit R ule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir cuit R ule 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 21, 2021 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-20631 Document: 00515830051 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2021No. 20

- 20631

2 naturalized in 1999 but convicted of various federal cr imes in 2002. The
Government moved to revoke his naturalization. We AFFIRM

.

I. Factual and Procedural History
Chijioke Victor Okoro was a licensed physician in Houston, Texas
from 1 989 to 2003. He owned and operated several medical clinics

. Okoro is a native of Nigeria, and he applied for naturalization in November 1997. Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS) approved his application in May 1999. On June 25, 1999 , Okoro was admit ted as a naturalized citizen and
issued a Certificate of Naturalization.
In February 2002, a grand jury indicted Okoro on twenty

- five counts, including (1) fifteen counts of mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341; (2) three counts of filing false federal income tax returns under 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1); and (3) seven counts of health care fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1347. The counts stemmed from Okoro’s conduct between 1995 and 2002. During that time, Okoro billed Medicare for treatments that he never provi ded and funneled the excess payments to his clinics. In October 2002, a jury convicted him of all twenty

- five count s

. Okoro was ultimately sentenced to 151 months imprisonment and three years of supervised release in August 2005. 1
In December 2019, the Government filed a complaint seeking
revocation of Okoro’s naturalization on four grounds : (1) he illegally procured naturalization because he committed a crime involving moral turpitude during the statutory period; (2) he illegally procured his
naturaliza tion because he committed unlawful acts adversely reflecting on his moral character during the statutory period; ( 3) he illegally procured

1 Okoro was originally sentenced to the same length of imprisonment in 2002, but he appealed. We affirmed his conviction and remanded for resentencing. United States v. Okoro , 213 F. App’x 348, 352 (5th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). Case: 20-20631 Document: 00515830051 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/21/2021No. 20

- 20631

3 naturalization by providing false testimony during his naturalization interview; and (4) he willfully misrepresented and concealed material facts during his naturalization proceedings. The district court granted the Government’s Rule 12(c) motion, concluding that Okoro illegally procured his naturalization while having committed unlawful acts adversely reflecting on hi s moral character. The district court did not reach the other grounds for the motion. This appeal
followed.

I I. Standard of Review

“ We review [the] district court ’ s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), applying the same de novo standard as to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. ” Aldridge v. Miss. Dep’t of Corr. , 9 9 0 F.3d 868,

87 3 (5th Cir. 2021)

.
II I. Discussion
Okoro argues that the district court erred when it granted the
Government’s motion. He argues that the granting of the motion violated his right to due process and that the motion was improperly granted in light of material fact issues and possible affirmative defenses.

1. Due Process Concerns

Okoro asserts that the district court erred by grant ing the motion because “denaturalizing an individual without the full benefits of trial results in severe due process deprivations.” We disagree.
Okoro argues tha t he was deprived of his right to allocution before being deemed denaturalized. Feder al Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(4)(A)(ii) requires sentencing judges to permit defendants to speak
be fore they are sentenced

. F ED

. R. C RIM

. P. 32(i)(4)(A)(ii). Th e right is only guaranteed in criminal proceedings. See F ED

. R. C RIM

. P . 1(a)(1) Case: 20-20631 Document: 00515830051 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/21/2021No. 20

- 20631

4 (“ These rules govern the procedure in all criminal proceedings in the United States district courts, the United States courts of appeals, and the Supreme
Court of the United States. ). “A denaturalization suit is not a criminal proceeding.” Schneiderman v. United States , 320 U.S. 118, 160 (1943). Okoro did not have a right to alloc ution under the Federal Rules, and we decline his
invitation to expand the right to non

- criminal proceedings.
Okoro does not identify any other rights of which he was allegedly deprived . Moreover, our sister circuits have concluded tha t denaturalization proceedings require fewer due process protections than criminal proceedings. See United States v. Mandycz , 447 F.3d 951, 962 (6th Cir. 2006); United States v. Schellong , 717 F.2d 329, 336 (7th Cir. 1983). We thus cannot
conclude that Okoro was deprived of his right to due process.

2. Merits of the Government’s Motion
Okoro next argues that the district court imper missibly granted the Government’s motion because there were material fact issu es and affirmative defenses that he could have raised. We disagree.
Though the Government listed four justifications for denaturalizing Okoro, the district court only granted th e motion pursuant to one of the Government’s justifications

. The district court concluded that the pleadings
demonstrate that Okoro committed unlawful acts reflect ing on his moral
character during the statutory peri od.
To acquire citizenship, one must meet several statutory requirements under 8 U.S.C. § 1427. Section 1427(a)(3) provides that “[n]o person . . . shall be naturalized unless such applicant . . . during all the periods referred
to in this subsection has been and still is a person of good moral character

. . . .” Applicants must maintain good moral character for a statutory period spanning from five years before they file their application for naturalization to the day that they take the oath

. Id

. at § 1427(a). Case: 20-20631 Document: 00515830051 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/21/2021No. 20

- 20631

5 Though Congress did not define “good moral character,” it listed
convictions for various offenses that prevent individuals from establishing good moral character. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(1)

– ( 9); 8 C.F.R. § 316.10(b)(1)

– (3). The list is not exhaustive. See § 1101(f) (9) (“ The fact that any person is not within any of the foregoing classes shall not preclude a finding that for other reasons such person is or was not of good moral character. ”)

. Applicants must also avoid committing offenses that adversely refl ect upon their moral character during the statutory period. See § 316. 10(b)(3)(iii).
We must determine whether the Government’s pleadings demonstrate by “clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence” 2 that Okoro lacked good moral character from November 6, 1992 to June 25, 1999. The
Government’s complaint a lleges that between June 1996 and June 1999, Okoro committed criminal acts including mail fraud and aiding and abetting in violation of 18 U.S.C. § § 1341 and 2

. Okoro was convicted in 2002, more than three years after the period during which he was required to demonstrate good moral character. Though Okoro was not convicted of these offenses during the statutory period, the Government proved that he committed the offenses during that time. Okoro’s offenses involve “dishonesty, false, statement, or fraud [and] reflect adversely on moral character.” United States v. Dor , 729 F. App’x 793, 798 (11th Cir. 2018) (per curiam).

The offenses fall within § 3 16.10(b)(3)(iii)’s prohibition o n offenses that adversely reflect upon one’s moral character . The statute compels the conclusion that Okoro lacked good moral character absent extenuating
circumstances. Id . at § 316.10(b)(3)(iii). The district court conclud ed that

2 Fed orenko v. United States, 449 U.S. 490, 505 (1981) (quoti ng Schneiderman , 320 U.S. at 125). Case: 20-20631 Document: 00515830051 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/21/2021No. 20

- 20631

6 Okoro did not present evidence of any extenuating circumstances, and we

agree.

Okoro ’s final argument is that he has affirmative defenses of laches
and the statute of limitations. However, he failed to raise those defenses
before the district cour t. Okoro’s only claim to an affirmative defense is a statement in his answer that “[He] Will Assert Appropriate Affirmative
Defenses to the Government Claim. ”
Okoro argues that h is statement adequately raised affirmative
defenses , but he relies on cases that are readily distinguishable . He relies on United States v. GSD&M Idea City LLC , No. 3:11

– CV

– 1154, 2014 WL

11320447 (N.D. Tex. June 10, 2014). In GSD&M Idea City , the district court
concluded that a non

- plead ed affirmative defense was a dequately raised
because the elements of the defense appeared “on the face of the complaint and in judicially noticeable facts and materials. ” 2014 WL 11320447 at *3.
No affirmative defenses are apparent from the pleadings , so the
district court could no t consider any potential defenses. Okoro failed to raise the defenses and may not present them for the first time on appeal. See FDIC v. Mijalis , 15 F.3d 1314, 1327 (5th Cir. 1994) (“If an argument is not raised to such a degree that the district court has an opportunity to rule on it, we will not address it on appeal.”).

IV

. Conclusion
For the aforementioned reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s order granting the Government’s Rule 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Case: 20-20631 Document: 00515830051 Page: 6 Date Filed: 04/21/2021