Opinion ID: 4470914
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Disqualifying-Fact Theory

Text: Officer Diaz testified that a reasonable USCIS adjudications officer, knowing the real facts, would have deemed Santos ineligible for citizenship and denied his naturalization application. In that regard, to be statutorily eligible for naturalization, a person must have been “lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1427(a). Officer Diaz offered three different reasons why Santos would have been deemed not “lawfully admitted” at the time of his application. First, when Santos reentered the United States in 1989, he had been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, which rendered him removable under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) and 1229a(e)(2). In addition, because Santos committed a crime involving moral turpitude in 1986, within five years of his original admission to the United States in 1982, he also was removable under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) and 1229a(e)(2). Finally, Santos was not “lawfully admitted” in 1989 because Santos had abandoned his lawful permanent residence status when he left the United States and lived in the Dominican Republic for over two years using an alias, which made him removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(C)(i). 41 Case: 18-14529 Date Filed: 01/09/2020 Page: 42 of 45 According to Officer Diaz, another ground for denying Santos naturalization was that he lacked “good moral character.” To be statutorily eligible for naturalization, a person must have been, and still be, “a person of good moral character.” 8 U.S.C. § 1427(a). An applicant lacks good moral character if he gives “false testimony for the purpose of obtaining” naturalization. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(6). Officer Diaz opined that Santos would have been deemed lacking in good moral character because he provided false oral testimony about his travel, criminal history, and use of an alias during his naturalization interview with Officer Barrios.