Opinion ID: 4470914
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Materiality Element

Text: As to materiality, under Maslenjak, the government must show a “meansend connection” or “causal influence,” between the defendant’s false statement made under oath and his naturalization. Id. at __, 137 S. Ct. at 1923, 1925-27. This is an objective inquiry focusing on whether “knowledge of the real facts would have affected a reasonable government official properly applying naturalization law.” Id. at __, __, 137 S. Ct. at 1923, 1928. The Supreme Court set forth two ways this causal link could be shown. Under the first way, which we will refer to as the disqualifying-fact theory, the real facts “are themselves disqualifying” such that “the official would have promptly denied [the] application” for citizenship had they been known. Id. at __, 137 S. Ct. at 1928. Under this approach, “there is an obvious causal link between the defendant’s lie and [his] procurement of citizenship.” Id. As examples, the Supreme Court cited an applicant who does not disclose travel history disrupting the period of physical presence in the United States or who lies about having a 39 Case: 18-14529 Date Filed: 01/09/2020 Page: 40 of 45 conviction for an aggravated felony and thus fails to establish good moral character, both of which are statutorily required, objective legal criteria for citizenship. Id. at __, 137 S. Ct. at 1928-29 (“[W]hen the defendant misrepresents facts that the law deems incompatible with citizenship, her lie must have played a role in her naturalization.”). Under the second way, called the “investigation-based theory,” the real facts, while not themselves disqualifying, “could have led” immigration officials to discover other disqualifying facts that would have justified denying the citizenship application. Id. at __, 137 S. Ct. at 1929 (quotation marks omitted). When relying on the investigation-based theory, the government “must make a two-part showing”: (1) “that the misrepresented fact was sufficiently relevant to one or another naturalization criterion that it would have prompted reasonable officials, seeking only evidence concerning citizenship qualifications, to undertake further investigation”; and (2) “that the investigation would predictably,” but not definitively, “have disclosed some legal disqualification.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). However, even if the government meets this burden, the defendant retains a complete defense to § 1425(a) by showing qualification for citizenship. Id. at __, 137 S. Ct. at 1930. 40 Case: 18-14529 Date Filed: 01/09/2020 Page: 41 of 45 Here, although the government relied on both methods to prove the materiality of Santos’s false statements to his eligibility for naturalization, either method is sufficient to sustain Santos’s conviction.