United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-10539

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Lilla Haiddar, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:19-CR-227-1

Before Jolly, Elrod, and Graves, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

A jury convicted Lilla Haiddar of two counts of making a false 

statement in a passport application and one count of unlawful procurement 

of citizenship or naturalization. She challenges the sufficiency of the 

* 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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

February 26, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-10539 Document: 00515758663 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/26/2021
No. 20-10539

2

evidence as to her conviction of unlawful procurement of citizenship or 

naturalization.

There are three elements to that offense: “(1) the defendant issued, 

procured, obtained, applied for, or otherwise attempted to procure 

naturalization or citizenship; (2) the defendant is not entitled [to] 

naturalization or citizenship; and (3) the defendant knows that he or she is 

not entitled to naturalization or citizenship.” United States v. Moses, 94 F.3d 

182, 184 (5th Cir. 1996). Haiddar does not dispute that the Government 

proved the first element, and she concedes that the evidence was sufficient 

to prove the superseding indictment’s allegation that she was ineligible for 

naturalization due to the lack of good moral character. She contends that the 

evidence was insufficient to prove that she knew of her ineligibility.

The superseding indictment alleged that she lacked good moral 

character because in applying for naturalization, she gave false answers under 

oath indicating that she (1) had never given false or misleading information 

to any United States government official while applying for any immigration 

benefit or to prevent deportation, exclusion, or removal; and (2) had never 

lied to any United States government official to gain entry or admission into 

the United States. The testimony of the immigration officer who adjudicated 

Haiddar’s naturalization application established that Haiddar’s responses to 

those two questions had a pivotal impact on her eligibility for naturalization.

Viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most 

favorable to the prosecution, we conclude that a rational juror could have 

found beyond a reasonable doubt that Haiddar knew that truthful responses 

to those questions would have made her ineligible for naturalization. See

Moses, 94 F.3d at 184, 187. First, Haiddar originally left those two questions 

blank while answering all but one of the other questions in the naturalization 

application’s section on “Good Moral Character.” Then during her 

Case: 20-10539 Document: 00515758663 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/26/2021
No. 20-10539

3

naturalization interview, Haiddar corrected some noncritical aspects of her 

naturalization application while falsely maintaining, in the two questions at 

issue, that she had never lied to a United States government official to gain

an immigration benefit. The evidence also showed that Haiddar had 

extensive experience with the immigration system, as she successfully 

obtained a C-1 visa, asylum, lawful permanent residency (LPR), naturalized 

citizenship, and a United States passport. From such evidence, a rational 

juror could have found that Haiddar treated the two questions at issue

differently than other questions in the naturalization application, and a 

rational juror could have reasonably inferred that Haiddar did so because she 

knew that truthful responses to those two questions would bar her from 

naturalization. See Moses, 94 F.3d at 184, 187.

Given that conclusion, we need not reach Haiddar’s arguments that 

the evidence also was insufficient to convict her under the Government’s 

alternative theory that she was ineligible for naturalization based on her 

unlawful LPR status and knew of her ineligibility on that basis.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 20-10539 Document: 00515758663 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/26/2021