Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
MOHAMMED ZAHID HOSSAIN, §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
...
I. THE ORIGIN OF THE MOTION
Hossain, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, was admitted to the United States as a
nonimmigra...
his spouse. On February 17, 2011, USCIS received a new N-400 filed by Hossain under 8
U.S.C. § 1427. USCIS denied the N-40...
the basis for its belief that there is no genuine issue for trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
U.S. 317, 323 (1986).
Whe...
III. THE COURT DENIES THE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND
GRANTS THE GOVERNMENT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY...
statutory period does not reflect that there has been reform of character” or if “the earlier
conduct and acts appear rele...
it provide any evidence of good moral character. At worst, the N-400 interview is evidence
of false testimony that statuto...
Hossain falsely represented himself as a citizen and that the Government Defendants have
not sufficiently proved his bad m...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Hossain v. Tarango et al, Civil Action No. 3=15-CV-0359-N (N.D. TX 09-14-2016) Natz Denied No Proof of GMC

93 views

Published on

Hossain v. Tarango et al, Civil Action No. 3:15-CV-0359-N (N.D. TX 09-14-2016) Natz Denied No Proof of GMC

Published in: News & Politics
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Hossain v. Tarango et al, Civil Action No. 3=15-CV-0359-N (N.D. TX 09-14-2016) Natz Denied No Proof of GMC

  1. 1. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION MOHAMMED ZAHID HOSSAIN, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Civil Action No. 3:15-CV-0359-N § TRACY TARANGO, et al., § § Defendants. § ORDER This Order addresses Plaintiff Mohammed Zahid Hossain’s motion for summary judgment [14] and the motion for summary judgment [18] and motion for leave to file corrected appendix [21]1 of Defendants Tracy Tarango, Director, United States Citizenship andImmigrationServices(USCIS)DallasFieldOffice;JehJohnson,Secretary,UnitedStates Department of Homeland Security; Eric Holder, Jr., Attorney General, United States Department of Justice; and Leon Rodriguez, Director, USCIS (collectively, “Government Defendants”). The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and grants the Government Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 1 The motion for leave to file is unopposed. The Court grants the motion. ORDER – PAGE 1 Case 3:15-cv-00359-N Document 24 Filed 09/14/16 Page 1 of 8 PageID 993
  2. 2. I. THE ORIGIN OF THE MOTION Hossain, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, was admitted to the United States as a nonimmigrant student on August 6, 2000. This case arises from the denial of Hossain’s N- 400 Application for Naturalization (“N-400") filed on February 17, 2011. Hossain signed a Form I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification (“I-9") for Payless Shoe Source on February 4, 2001, on which he attested under penalty of perjury that he was a “citizen or national of the United States.” On October 3, 2003, Hossain signed an I-9 for EZ Mart and again attested under penalty of perjury that he was a “citizen or national of the United States.” During the year 2003, Hossain was put in removal proceedings by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for being employed without authorization. At this time, ICE presented Hossain’s I-9 for EZ Mart against him as a false claim to citizenship. An immigration judge denied ICE’s petition for Hossain’s removal, finding that the government failed to establish that Hossain had made the alleged false claim. ICE moved to reopen the removal proceedings after finding Hossain’s I-9 for Payless Shoe Source, but the immigration court denied the motion on the grounds that the government failed to file an appeal and thus should most appropriately issue a new Notice to Appear. On January 14, 2008, Hossain filed an N-400 under 8 U.S.C. § 1430 based on his marriage to a United States citizen. While being interviewed in connection with his N-400 on June 27, 2008, Hossain denied in writing that he had ever claimed to be a United States citizen. In 2010, USCIS denied Hossain’s N-400 because Hossain was no longer living with ORDER – PAGE 2 Case 3:15-cv-00359-N Document 24 Filed 09/14/16 Page 2 of 8 PageID 994
  3. 3. his spouse. On February 17, 2011, USCIS received a new N-400 filed by Hossain under 8 U.S.C. § 1427. USCIS denied the N-400 on November 8, 2011. Hossain filed a Form N-336 requesting a hearing on the 2011 N-400 decision. USCIS issued a notice withdrawing the 2011 N-400 and stating that a new decision would be issued. The USCIS Dallas Field Office issued a new decision again denying the N-400 due to a failure to prove good moral character. Hossain filed an N-336 requesting a hearing on the N-400 decision. On April 30, 2014, during an interview in connection with the N-336, Hossain chose to remain silent in response to questions asked by the Immigration Services Officer regarding false claims to citizenship. The government reaffirmed its denial of the N- 400, citing false claims to citizenship, written denials of such false claims to citizenship, and Hossain’s silence in response to his interviewing officer’s questions as reasons for its denial. On February 18, 2015, Hossain filed this lawsuit, requesting the Court to issue an order naturalizing Hossain as a citizen of the United States. II. THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD Courts “shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” FED.R.CIV.P.56(a); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986). In making this determination, courts must view all evidence and draw all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962). The moving party bears the initial burden of informing the court of ORDER – PAGE 3 Case 3:15-cv-00359-N Document 24 Filed 09/14/16 Page 3 of 8 PageID 995
  4. 4. the basis for its belief that there is no genuine issue for trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). When a party bears the burden of proof on an issue, “he must establish beyond peradventure all of the essential elements of the claim or defense to warrant judgment in his favor.” Fontenot v. Upjohn Co., 780 F.2d 1190, 1194 (5th Cir. 1986). When the nonmovant bears the burden of proof, the movant may demonstrate entitlement to summary judgment either by (1) submitting evidence that negates the existence of an essential element of the nonmovant’s claim or affirmative defense, or (2) arguing that there is no evidence to support an essential element of the nonmovant’s claim or affirmative defense. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322–25. Once the movant has made this showing, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to establish that there is a genuine issue of material fact so that a reasonable jury might return a verdict in its favor. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586–87 (1986). Moreover, “[c]onclusory allegations, speculation, and unsubstantiated assertions” will not suffice to satisfy the nonmovant’s burden. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1429 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). Indeed, factual controversies are resolved in favor of the nonmoving party “‘only when an actual controversy exists, that is, when both parties have submitted evidence of contradictory facts.’” Olabisiomotosho v. City of Hous., 185 F.3d 521, 525 (5th Cir. 1999) (quoting McCallum Highlands, Ltd. v. Washington Capital Dus, Inc., 66 F.3d 89, 92 (5th Cir. 1995)). ORDER – PAGE 4 Case 3:15-cv-00359-N Document 24 Filed 09/14/16 Page 4 of 8 PageID 996
  5. 5. III. THE COURT DENIES THE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTS THE GOVERNMENT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FortheCourttograntnaturalizationtoanapplicantundersection1427,suchapplicant must currently be and for all relevant time periods have been “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(a). The applicant “bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of credible evidence that he qualifies for naturalization and the court must ‘resolve all doubts in favor of the United States and against those seeking citizenship.’” Kamara v. Lynch, 786 F.3d 420, 425 (5th Cir. 2015), quoting Bustamente-Barrera v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 388, 394–95 (5th Cir. 2006). Because the undisputed facts and record show that Hossain has not met his burden of proving good moral character by a preponderance of the evidence, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and grants the Government Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. A. Plaintiff Is Not Entitled to Summary Judgment Because He Has Failed to Prove Good Moral Character by a Preponderance of the Evidence Hossain bears the burden of demonstrating that, for the statutory period, he has been and continues to be a person of good moral character. See 8 C.F.R. § 316.10(a)(1). Claims of good moral character are evaluated by reference to the “standards of the average citizen in the community of residence.” 8 C.F.R. § 316.10(a)(2). The government may consider an applicant’s conduct during the five years immediately preceding the filing of the application when determining then applicant’s moral character. The government may also consider an applicant’s conduct prior to that five-year period if “the conduct of the applicant during the ORDER – PAGE 5 Case 3:15-cv-00359-N Document 24 Filed 09/14/16 Page 5 of 8 PageID 997
  6. 6. statutory period does not reflect that there has been reform of character” or if “the earlier conduct and acts appear relevant to a determination of the applicant’s present moral character.” 8 C.F.R. § 316.10(a)(2). It is undisputed that on his I-9s for Payless Shoe Source and EZ Mart, Hossain checked boxes under penalty of perjury attesting that he was a citizen or national of the United States. Although the I-9s in question fall outside of the statutory five-year period, the Court may consider the I-9s insofar as they may serve as evidence of Hossain’s truthfulness in the June 27, 2008 N-400 interview in which Hossain swore that he had never claimed to be a United States citizen. Hossain contends that he has always denied the charge of false claim of United States citizenship and that the record lacks evidence to support the allegation of false claim of United States citizenship. See Pl. Mot. for Summ. J. at 9. Although “it is theoretically possible that an alien who has checked the ‘citizen or national’ box has not represented himself to be a citizen . . ., the significance of the form may depend on the credibility of the alien’s testimony concerning his intent in checking the box.” Hashmi v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 700, 703–04 (8th Cir. 2008). The Government Defendants are correct in asserting that Hossain bears the burden of proving that he has good moral character, including evidence of his intent or credibility in checking the box. Hossain has not provided any such evidence or testimony. At best, Hossain’s N-400 interview in which he denied ever having claimed to be a United States citizen brings into question whether Hossain intended to falsely claim to be a United States citizen or a United States national. However, such evidence fails to amount to an explanation of Hossain’s intent in checking the box nor does ORDER – PAGE 6 Case 3:15-cv-00359-N Document 24 Filed 09/14/16 Page 6 of 8 PageID 998
  7. 7. it provide any evidence of good moral character. At worst, the N-400 interview is evidence of false testimony that statutorily prevents Hossain’s naturalization. See 8 C.F.R. § 316.10(b)(2)(vi). The government may, but need not, draw a negative inference from the silence of a naturalization applicant. See United States v. Posada Carriles, 541 F.3d 344, 357, n.3 (5th Cir. 2008). On April 30, 2014, during an interview in connection with his N-336, Hossain remained silent in response to questions from an Immigration Services Officer regarding Hossain’s alleged false claims to citizenship. Hossain argues that his silence was due to the behavior of the officers at the Dallas Field Office who “tried to strong arm and coerce Hossain into admitting that he had falsely claimed to be a US citizen.” Pl. Mot. for Summ. J. 11. Hossain, however, fails to explain why he responded to the officers’ questioning with silence rather than by answering in the negative. For this reason, USCIS could legitimately draw a negative inference from Hossain’s silence in the April 30 N-336 interview. Even if Hossain’s arguments create doubt as to the adequacy of the Government Defendants’ arguments that Hossain lacks good moral character, the burden remains on Hossain to affirmatively establish his good moral character beyond peradventure as required by section 1427. Hossain has failed to provide any such evidence. Pleadings do not suffice to meet this burden – “the party who seeks a summary judgment must show by affidavit or other evidentiary materials that there is no genuine dispute as to any fact material to resolution of the motion.” Fontenot, 780 F.2d at 1194 (emphasis added). Hossain relies largely on arguments that the Government Defendants have not proved beyond a doubt that ORDER – PAGE 7 Case 3:15-cv-00359-N Document 24 Filed 09/14/16 Page 7 of 8 PageID 999
  8. 8. Hossain falsely represented himself as a citizen and that the Government Defendants have not sufficiently proved his bad moral character, but Hossain fails to provide evidence of his good moral character.2 To the extent Hossain does attempt to prove his good moral character, he does so through assertions in his motion but fails to provide any evidence to substantiate those assertions. For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies Hossain’s motion for summary judgment. B. The Government Defendants Are Entitled to Summary Judgment The Government Defendants have established that Hossain has failed to prove an essential element of his claim – that he is of good moral character. For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the Government Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. CONCLUSION TheCourtdeniesHossain’smotionforsummaryjudgmentandgrantstheGovernment Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Signed September 14, 2016. _________________________________ David C. Godbey United States District Judge 2 Hossain states that he has met his burden of proof in the context of the N-400 because the Government Defendants have not established that Hossain falsely claimed citizenship. This mischaracterizes Hossain’s burden, which is to affirmatively prove every element of his claim for naturalization, including his good moral character. ORDER – PAGE 8 Case 3:15-cv-00359-N Document 24 Filed 09/14/16 Page 8 of 8 PageID 1000

×