United States Court of Appeals

for 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:*

Chijioke 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 Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 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: 04/21/2021
No. 20-20631

2

naturalized in 1999 but convicted of various federal crimes 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 1989 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 admitted 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 provided and funneled 

the excess payments to his clinics. In October 2002, a jury convicted him of 

all twenty-five counts. 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 

naturalization 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: 04/21/2021
No. 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 his moral character. The 

district court did not reach the other grounds for the motion. This appeal 

followed.

II. 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., 990 F.3d 868, 

873 (5th Cir. 2021).

III. 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 granting the motion 

because “denaturalizing an individual without the full benefits of trial results 

in severe due process deprivations.” We disagree.

Okoro argues that he was deprived of his right to allocution before 

being deemed denaturalized. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 

32(i)(4)(A)(ii) requires sentencing judges to permit defendants to speak 

before they are sentenced. FED. R. CRIM. P. 32(i)(4)(A)(ii). The right is 

only guaranteed in criminal proceedings. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 1(a)(1)

Case: 20-20631 Document: 00515830051 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/21/2021
No. 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 allocution 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 that 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 impermissibly granted the 

Government’s motion because there were material fact issues and affirmative 

defenses that he could have raised. We disagree.

Though the Government listed four justifications for denaturalizing 

Okoro, the district court only granted the motion pursuant to one of the 

Government’s justifications. The district court concluded that the pleadings 

demonstrate that Okoro committed unlawful acts reflecting on his moral 

character during the statutory period. 

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: 04/21/2021
No. 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 reflect 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”2that Okoro 

lacked good moral character from November 6, 1992 to June 25, 1999. The 

Government’s complaint alleges 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 § 316.10(b)(3)(iii)’s prohibition on 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 concluded that 

2 Fedorenko v. United States, 449 U.S. 490, 505 (1981) (quoting Schneiderman, 320 

U.S. at 125).

Case: 20-20631 Document: 00515830051 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/21/2021
No. 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 court. 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 his 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-pleaded affirmative defense was adequately 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 not 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