Opinion ID: 2976918
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Proceedings in General

Text: As explained above, Kalymon is a naturalized citizen. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, if a person “illegally procured” his citizenship or otherwise procured it “by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation,” then the person’s citizenship must be revoked. 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a). “[T]here must be strict compliance with all the congressionally imposed prerequisites to the acquisition of citizenship. Failure to comply with any of these conditions renders the certificate of citizenship ‘illegally procured’ and naturalization that is unlawfully procured can be set aside.” Fedorenko, 449 U.S. at 506 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a)). However, the Government has a heavy burden of proof during denaturalization proceedings. Id. at 505. “The evidence justifying revocation of citizenship must be clear, unequivocal, and convincing and not leave the issue in doubt.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 2. Persecution and Conduct Contrary to Civilization and Human Decency One of the prerequisites to becoming a naturalized citizen is lawful admission into the United States pursuant to a valid visa. United States v. Dailide, 227 F.3d 385, 390 (6th Cir. 2000). In 1948, Congress enacted the DPA to enable European refugees of war to emigrate from their home country to the United States irrespective of traditional immigration quotas. Fedorenko, 449 U.S. at 495. A person who sought to enter the United States under the DPA first had to qualify as a refugee or displaced person with the International Refugee Organization of the United Nations (“IRO”). Demjanjuk, 367 F.3d at 629. The DPA created a multi-layered system to determine an applicant’s eligibility as a displaced person. Fedorenko, 449 U.S. at 495. An IRO official would first interview an applicant, followed by an official from the DPC. Id. at 495-96. The officials would report their findings to a State Department vice consul who made the final decision on eligibility. Id. at 496. Following the vice consul’s decision, Immigration and Naturalization Service officials reviewed the application to ensure that the applicant was admissible to the United States under the immigration laws. Id. One class of persons who was automatically excluded from the definition of “displaced persons” was anyone who “‘assisted the enemy in persecuting civil[ians]’” or who “had ‘voluntarily assisted the enemy forces . . . in their operations.’” Id. at 495 (quoting Annex I to the Constitution of the IRO, Part II, 62 Stat. 3051-3052). Whether one assisted in the persecution of civilians was to be determined by a person’s actual conduct rather than, for example, his “mere membership in an enemy group.” Dailide, 227 F.3d at 395. In addition, State Department regulations precluded the issuance of a visa to any person who “advocated or acquiesced in activities or conduct contrary to civilization and human decency.” 22 C.F.R. § 53.33(j) (1949). Mere membership in an organization was, again, usually not enough. United States v. Koreh, 59 F.3d 431, 442 (3d Cir. 1995). As the district court correctly noted, Kalymon’s participation in general police duties did not constitute assistance in the persecution of civilians. Kalymon, 2007 WL 1012983, at . However, the district court found that some of the general duties of a UAP member encompassed enforcing persecutory measures against Jews. Id. Furthermore, the district court found that Kalymon engaged in several “extraordinary” acts with regard to the L’viv Jewish ghetto, “such as taking part in sweeps of the ghetto during periodic reduction actions; manning cordon posts around the city to prevent Jews from escaping before and during such actions[;] and hunting for Jews who attempted to hide or flee.” Id. Kalymon does not dispute that these duties and acts would amount to persecution excluding the actor from the definition of a displaced person. See United States v. Sokolov, 814 F.2d 864, 874 No. 07-1965 United States v. Kalymon Page 8 (2d Cir. 1987) (“Webster’s Dictionary defines ‘persecution’ as ‘the infliction of sufferings, harm, or death on those who differ . . . in a way regarded as offensive or meriting extirpation,’ and as ‘a campaign having for its object the subjugation or extirpation of the adherents of a religion.’”). Nor does he dispute that these duties and acts would also constitute advocating or acquiescing in conduct contrary to civilization and human decency. See Firishchak, 468 F.3d at 1026 (explaining that “given the facts established at trial, the district court properly concluded that Firishchak’s UAP service constituted conduct contrary to human decency”). Instead, he argues that he did not engage in these duties or acts. He argues that the discrepancy between the surname he used at the time, “Kalymon,” and the UAP member’s surname referenced in several of the wartime documents, “Kalymun,” adds “a layer of suspicion” to the evidence. Appellant’s Br. at 28. Additionally, he argues that the document (P112) indicating that “Iv. Kalymun” fired four shots, killing one and wounding another, did not reference him because he never shortened his name to “Iv.” Due process “does not require ideal accuracy” of spelling, “even in names.” Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385, 395 (1914). “In the spelling and pronunciation of proper names there are no generally accepted standards; and the well-established doctrine of idem sonans [the same sound] . . . is a recognition of this.” Id. at 395-96. This court has held that the spelling of names in wartime documents does not need to be accurate so long as the phonetic sound is maintained. Mandycz, 447 F.3d at 957 (explaining that because the guard recorded in the document “had the same first name as Mandycz and the same phonetic last name as Mandycz, the transfer records support the district court’s decision”). It is undisputed that the wartime documents recording these persecutory acts attributed them to “Kalymun,” which is phonetically identical to Defendant’s admitted surname. Moreover, Defendant admitted to using both spellings (“Kalymon” and “Kalymun”) during his lifetime. “Iv” clearly could be an abbreviation for “Ivan.” While Defendant testified that he never used that abbreviation, whether to accept his assertion was a matter of credibility for the district court to decide. Anderson, 470 U.S. at 575. Given the linguistic identity between the first names, the phonetic identity between the surnames, and the absence of any other “Ivan/Iwan/Jan” “Kalymon/Kalymun” combination, with the same date of birth and birthplace serving in the UAP at that time, the district court did not clearly err in concluding that Defendant was the individual identified in the wartime records who committed the recorded persecutory acts. The district court’s finding was sufficient to revoke Kalymon’s citizenship under either Count I (not a displaced person under the DPA) or Count IV (advocating or acquiescing in conduct contrary to civilization and human decency, in violation of visa regulations). Accordingly, we affirm the district court on these counts. 3. Import of Kalymon’s Admitted Misrepresentation About his Work Experience Section 10 of the DPA provides that any person who made “a misrepresentation for the purpose of gaining admission into the United States as an eligible displaced person shall thereafter not be admissible into the United States.” DPA § 10, 62 Stat. 1013. However, this provision applies only to willful misrepresentations of material facts. Fedorenko, 449 U.S. at 507 n.28. A misrepresentation “is material if it ‘has a natural tendency to influence, or was capable of influencing, the decision of’ the decisionmaking body to which it was addressed.” Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759, 770 (1988) (quoting Weinstock v. United States, 231 F.2d 699, 701-02 (D.C. Cir. 1956)). “Thus, for purposes of determining the natural tendency of a misrepresentation to affect a decision . . ., what is relevant is what would have ensued from official knowledge of the misrepresented fact . . . .” Id. at 775 (plurality). However, the Government is not required to prove that the defendant would not have been granted a visa but for the misrepresentation. Demjanjuk, 367 F.3d at 636-37. Materiality of a misrepresentation is a question of law. Kungys, 485 U.S. at 772. No. 07-1965 United States v. Kalymon Page 9 Although Kalymon concedes that he willfully misrepresented his UAP employment, he argues that the misrepresentation was not material. He attacks the district court’s finding of materiality on two grounds: (a) the logical impossibility of finding that a person made a material misrepresentation about his service during World War II while at the same time finding that the service was not as a member of a hostile movement against the United States; and (b) the admission of certain expert testimony and reports concerning materiality was reversible error. Both grounds are taken up in turn. Kalymon contends that the district court could not logically find both that the Government failed to meet its burden to show that the UAP was a hostile movement under Section 13 of the DPA and that his lying about his service in the UAP was material. There is, however, no logical or legal incongruity in the district court’s findings. Whether the UAP as an organization was hostile to the United States is a different question than whether Kalymon’s misrepresentation about his own activities during the war would have had a natural tendency to influence, or was capable of influencing, the decision of immigration officials. For example, a person could persecute someone without being a member of a hostile movement; if it were otherwise, the latter class would subsume the former, making § 2 of the DPA superfluous. As discussed above, persecution itself can make one ineligible to be a displaced person under the DPA. Thus, one could be precluded from gaining a visa solely because he persecuted against Jews even if he did not belong to a hostile movement. Lying about his persecutory actions would, therefore, be lying about something that would preclude him from gaining a visa, i.e., a material fact. Fedorenko, 449 U.S. at 509 (“At the very least, a misrepresentation must be considered material if disclosure of the true facts would have made the applicant ineligible for a visa.”). The district court correctly found that Kalymon’s wartime activities, including his service in the UAP and his activities as a UAP member, were material facts. Had the investigating officials known about his service and at least some of his general duties in the UAP, they would have investigated further, as several of the Government’s experts indicated. In doing so, they might have learned about his extraordinary activities, including rounding up and shooting Jews, killing at least one of them. Had they learned of these activities, Kalymon would not have received a visa. Thus, the information Kalymon kept from the investigating officials clearly was capable of at least influencing the officials’ investigation and ultimate decision to grant him a visa. But, Kalymon argues, the Government’s experts on DPA investigations and procedures should have been disqualified from testifying. He asserts in particular that three witnesses failed to meet the reliability threshold for expert testimony because they were admittedly not experts of Eastern European or Ukrainian political history or experts of the UAP. Fed. R. Evid. 702 states, If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case. We apply an abuse-of-discretion standard when reviewing a district court’s decision to admit or exclude expert testimony. Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 152 (1999). A district court “has broad discretion in the matter of the admission or exclusion of expert evidence, and [the court’s] action is to be sustained unless manifestly erroneous.” Demjanjuk, 367 F.3d at 633 (citation omitted). This discretion is at its zenith during a bench trial. Id. No. 07-1965 United States v. Kalymon Page 10 In the first place, it is questionable to what extent the district court relied upon the immigration witnesses’ testimony to reach its legal conclusion that Kalymon’s misrepresentations were material. The district court did not cite or discuss their testimony in its analysis of materiality. See Kalymon, 2007 WL 1012983, at . The district court cited decisions by other courts dealing with essentially the same issue: whether lying about one’s involvement in the Ukrainian or other Eastern European police or military during World War II constituted a material misrepresentation. See United States v. Kowalchuk, 773 F.2d 488, 497 (3d Cir. 1985) (Immigration officials paid “[c]lose attention . . . to the applicant’s occupation and residence during the war years . . . . Persons who had served in the Ukrainian police or militia would have been ineligible.”); Maikovskis v. INS, 773 F.2d 435, 442 (2d Cir. 1985) (determining that a visa applicant “known to have served with the Latvian police would have had his background fully investigated to determine whether he assisted in persecution”); United States v. Koziy, 728 F.2d 1314, 1319-20 (11th Cir. 1984) (explaining that had the defendant “disclosed his connection with the police force in his visa application, his application would have been rejected outright, or at the least, an investigation would have commenced which might have led to a denial of citizenship”); United States v. Osidach, 513 F. Supp. 51, 101-02 (E.D. Pa. 1981) (finding that the claim by a Ukrainian policeman that he had been a dairy technician was a material misrepresentation under the DPA). Furthermore, the Government did not offer the three immigration witnesses as historical experts about World War II in general or wartime Eastern Europe, the Ukraine, or the UAP. (Kalymon raises no claim of error on appeal with regard to the Government’s historical expert, Dr. Pohl.) Nor did the Government offer their testimony to prove that Kalymon, in fact, engaged in the various wartime activities alleged in the complaint. “[E]xperts may base their testimony upon information not within their personal knowledge or observation.” Dailide, 227 F.3d at 392 (citing Fed. R. Evid. 702, 703). Thus, Kalymon’s argument that the witnesses’ views should be discounted because they assumed as true the Government’s allegations loses its steam. Instead, the Government offered the immigration witnesses for testimony regarding their experience in the processing of DPA visa applications. DeCapua, in fact, helped to develop the very procedures used by the officials to investigate and report the wartime activities of potential displaced persons. The witnesses offered testimony to show that, assuming arguendo that officials had known about Kalymon’s wartime activities, the officials would have investigated his background much more closely. On this subject—DPA policies and procedures—Kalymon is virtually silent on appeal. While he does point out that Smith testified that he had not heard of the term “hostile movement,” see Appellant’s Br. at 47, such an isolated matter is hardly sufficient to show that the district court abused its discretion in admitting his testimony or the testimony of the others, cf. Hardyman v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 243 F.3d 255, 258 (6th Cir. 2001) (explaining that the court will find “an abuse only if [it is] firmly convinced that the district court erred”). Our review of the bases for their testimony confirms that the district court did not abuse its discretion. As to the reports of the three experts, Kalymon argues that the district court should have rejected them because, in Kalymon’s view, the substantive content of the reports was almost entirely the product of the Government. For support, he cites to testimony in which the experts explain that they told Government counsel their substantive opinions, and then counsel reduced those opinions to writing for the experts’ review and signature. Contrary to Kalymon’s contention, there is nothing inherently nefarious in this. All that the rules require is that an expert submit a written report signed and prepared by the witness, and that “‘[t]he report shall contain a complete statement of all opinions to be expressed and the basis and reasons therefor.’” Dailide, 227 F.3d at 392 n.6 (quoting a prior version of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B)). The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 26 (1993 amendments) state, Rule 26(a)(2)(B) does not preclude counsel from providing assistance to experts in preparing the reports . . . . Nevertheless, the report, which is intended to set forth the No. 07-1965 United States v. Kalymon Page 11 substance of the direct examination, should be written in a manner that reflects the testimony to be given by the witness and it must be signed by the witness. A party’s attorney can reduce an expert’s oral opinion to writing so long as the report reflects the actual views of the expert. Thus, there being no legal error in finding “material” a misrepresentation about wartime activities as part of a police force not otherwise determined to be a hostile movement against the United States, and there being no abuse of discretion in admitting the expert witness testimony and reports about the DPA procedures, we affirm the district court on Count III as well.