# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or 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* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4.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 February 26, 2021 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-10539 Document: 00515758663 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/26/2021No. 20

- 10539

2 evidence as to her convict ion of unlawful procurement of citizenship or
naturalization

. There are three elements to that offense: “(1) the defendant issued, procured, obtained, applied for, or otherwis e 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 s he concedes that the evidence was sufficient to prove the superseding indictment’s allegation that she was ineligible for naturalization due to the lack of go od moral character. She contends that the
evidence was in sufficient 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 g overnment 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.

V iewing 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 d uring her Case: 20-10539 Document: 00515758663 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/26/2021No. 20

- 10539

3 naturalization interview, Haiddar corrected some noncritical aspects of her
naturaliz a tion 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, l awful 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 i n the naturalization application , and a rational juror cou ld 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 inelig ibility on that basis

.
**AFFIRMED**

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