1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

SONAL SHAH,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN THOMPSON, Newark District 

Director, United States Citizenship and 

Immigration Services; UNITED STATES 

CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION 

SERVICES,

Defendants.

Civ. No. 2:11-03082 (WJM)

OPINION

WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.:

Defendant United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) 

can deny naturalization if an applicant lacks “good moral character.” An applicant 

lacks “good moral character” if she lies in a naturalization interview. USCIS 

maintains that Plaintiff Sonal Shah lied in her naturalization interview; Shah 

maintains that she did not. With the instant motion, Shah asks this Court to enter 

summary judgment declaring her entitlement to naturalization. There was no oral 

argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b). Because there is a genuine issue of material fact 

regarding whether Shah lied during her naturalization interview, the Court will 

DENY the motion. 

I. BACKGROUND

Except as noted, the following facts are undisputed: Shah was born in India. 

Sonal Shah Decl. ¶ 2, ECF No. 4-2. In 2000, she and her husband acquired landed 

immigrant status in Canada. Id. ¶ 4. On January 26, 2001, Mr. and Mrs. Shah’s 

right to enter the United States was “challenged” when they attempted cross the 

border from Canada. Id. ¶ 5. The parties dispute the legal significance of that 

Case 2:11-cv-03082-WJM Document 14 Filed 12/10/12 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 213
2

“challenge,” but they do not dispute that Shah was eventually granted legal 

permanent residency status on May 24, 2002. Id. ¶ 2.

Some years later, when Shah applied for naturalization, she sat for an 

interview with USCIS. In that interview, she was asked whether she had left the 

United States between June 30, 1995 and May 24, 2002. Shah Sworn Statement 2, 

ECF No. 9-11. She answered, “No.” Id. Later, she conceded living in Canada in 

2000. Id. Shortly thereafter, USCIS denied Shah’s application. United States 

Citizenship and Immigration Services Decision, ECF No. 9-12. First, USCIS

concluded that Shah never should have been admitted to permanent residency. Id.

at 5. Second, it concluded that Shah lacked the “good moral character” required 

for naturalization. Id. USCIS made this latter determination based on what it 

describes as lies Shah told in order to secure permanent residency, and also on lies 

Shah told in her naturalization interview. Id. Shah took an administrative appeal 

from the adverse decision. Decision on Review of Denial of Naturalization 

Application, ECF No. 9-13. Her appeal was unsuccessful. 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court’s review of a naturalization denial is de novo. 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c). 

In conducting this review, the Court is not bound by the factual or legal 

conclusions of USCIS. Id.; see also Bustamante v. Napolitano, 582 F.3d 403, 410 

(3d Cir. 2009) (“[T]he court is required to make its own findings of fact and 

conclusions of law.”).

Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to 

interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show 

that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is 

entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 

322 (1986) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56). A factual dispute is genuine if a 

reasonable jury could find for the non-moving party, and is material if it will affect 

the outcome of the trial under governing substantive law. Anderson v. Liberty 

Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The Court considers all evidence and 

inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. 

Andreoli v. Gates, 482 F.2d 641, 644 (3d Cir. 2007).

III. DISCUSSION

The Court cannot enter judgment because Shah has failed to meet her burden 

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Specifically, she has failed to 

demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact regarding her “good 

moral character,” as that term is used in the immigration laws. 

Case 2:11-cv-03082-WJM Document 14 Filed 12/10/12 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 214
3

To become a naturalized citizen, an individual must demonstrate that she is 

“a person of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of 

the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United 

States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1427. For purposes of the instant motion, an applicant lacks 

good moral character if she testifies falsely under oath with intent to obtain an 

immigration benefit. 8 C.F.R. 316.10(b)(2)(vi). It does not matter whether the 

false testimony was material. Id. 

Reviewing USCIS’s decision de novo, the Court must “make its own 

findings of fact and conclusion of law.” 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c). Summary judgment 

is proper if Shah can demonstrate, on the record before the Court, that there is no 

genuine dispute as to any material fact. She has failed to meet her burden. During 

her naturalization interview, Shah testified that she never left the United States 

between June 30, 1995 and May 24, 2002. Shah Sworn Statement 2. She later 

admitted living in Canada in 2000. Id. Clearly, Shah testified falsely. It is a 

question of fact whether Shah was confused or whether she was trying to conceal 

information to “obtain an immigration benefit.” 8 C.F.R. 316.10(b)(2)(vi). 

Shah argues that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact regarding 

her good character. She maintains that USCIS had effectively the same record 

before it when it granted her permanent residency application, and that any 

character challenge based on that record is time-barred. Shah purports to find 

support for her argument in Garcia v. Attorney General, 553 F.3d 724, 728 (3d Cir. 

2006), which held that removal proceedings arising out of fraudulent permanent 

residency applications are subject to the five-year limitations period set forth in 8 

U.S.C. § 1256(a). 

The Court assumes without deciding that Garcia’s time-bar applies to 

Shah’s naturalization application. Even with the benefit of this assumption, Shah 

is still not entitled to summary judgment. Recall that USCIS denied Shah’s 

naturalization application for two reasons. First, it determined that Shah was never 

properly admitted to permanent legal residency. Second, it determined that she 

lacked good moral character based on answers she gave in her naturalization 

interview and answers she gave in connection with her permanent residency 

application. By assumption, it was inappropriate for USCIS to consider the 

correctness of its decision to admit Shah to permanent legal residency. It was also 

inappropriate for USCIS to consider any alleged lies Shah told in her permanent 

residency interview. But it was not inappropriate for USCIS to base its 

naturalization decision on lies Shah allegedly told during her naturalization 

interview. It is one thing to argue that USCIS is time-barred from considering old 

lies; it is another thing to argue that USCIS must turn a blind eye to new lies.

Ultimately, even if the Court were to assume, contrary to USCIS’s 

conclusions, that Shah satisfied the requirements for permanent residency in 2002, 

Case 2:11-cv-03082-WJM Document 14 Filed 12/10/12 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 215
4

and even if the Court were to assume that Shah gave truthful answers in her

permanent residency interview, it remains a fact that Shah uttered an independent 

falsehood during her naturalization interview. She said she had not left the United 

States. She had. There is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Shah 

misspoke or whether she lied to obtain immigration benefits. Accordingly, there is 

a genuine issue of material fact regarding Shah’s “good moral character.” See 8 

U.S.C. § 1421(c); 8 C.F.R. 316.10(b)(2)(vi). Court will DENY the motion for 

summary judgment. An appropriate order follows.

 /s/ William J. Martini 

 WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.

Date: December 10, 2012

Case 2:11-cv-03082-WJM Document 14 Filed 12/10/12 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 216