Irvine, CA man may lose U.S. citizenship for lying in his N400

[Feliz-LA]

Irvine, CA man may lose U.S. citizenship for lying in his N400 14 years ago

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/ahmadzai-citizenship-appeal-2058066-case-court

Monday, June 2, 2008
Irvine man may lose U.S. citizenship for lying on documents
A court order will strip Hares Ahmadzai of his citizenship if he fails to win an appeal of a jury conviction for naturalization fraud.
By AMY TAXIN
The Orange County Register
Comments 4 | Recommend 3

SANTA ANA - A federal judge on Monday sentenced an Irvine man convicted of lying on his U.S. naturalization application to 4 1/4 years in prison and a loss of his citizenship if he fails to win his case on appeal.

Hares Ahmadzai, 35, was found guilty last year of lying about his criminal history on his application to become a U.S. citizen – which meant he could lose his status here.

As a child, Ahmadzai and his family fled the war in his native Afghanistan and was granted asylum in the United States. He obtained a green card and became a U.S. citizen in 1994.

Years later, federal immigration officials realized Ahmadzai had failed to disclose on his citizenship paperwork that he had past convictions for false impersonation, drug sales and battery. They brought a case against him for naturalization fraud, which he lost last year.

That led U.S. District Court Judge James V. Selna to order that Ahmadzai be stripped of his U.S. citizenship if he fails to win his case on appeal.

"It's as if the order is signed and post-dated," said David Kaloyanides, Ahmadzai's attorney.

Naturalized U.S. citizens can lose their status if they are found to have obtained their citizenship through fraudulent means -- but such cases are relatively uncommon, said Thom Mrozek, spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's office.

Wearing a mint green prison jumpsuit, Ahmadzai pleaded with the court to reduce his sentence due to his past collaboration with the Irvine police department as an informant on drug cases.

"I would like to apologize to my family for all the humiliation, and the pain and humiliation my actions have caused them," Ahmadzai told the court Monday morning, reading from notes he had prepared. His sister and niece, seated in the courtroom, fought back tears.

Ahmadzai, who has a history of substance abuse, also faces a charge in state court related to the use of false documents, Kaloyanides said.

Ahmadzai has about nine months remaining on his federal sentence and will keep his U.S. citizenship throughout the appeal process. That protects his right to file an appeal – otherwise, he might be deported and face a difficult time arguing his case from abroad.

It also prevents what Selna said could prove a "bureaucratic nightmare" were Ahmadzai to be deported but win an appeal of his conviction and demand his U.S. citizenship be reinstated.

"You're never de-naturalized until you've exhausted your appeals," said Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Stolper.

Contact the writer: 714-796-7722 or ataxin@ocregister.com

 

[Huracan]

Unfortunately there are a few cases like that, and the government is usually pretty vicious on prosecuting them. Perhaps they want to use a strategy of setting precedent. I've been thinking we should unite and demand congress to amend the law and have some statute of limitation for things like that. Let's say that in 3 or 5 years after naturalization everything still looks clean they could not strip you of your citizenship anymore.

 

[Bobsmyth]

I don't feel pity for someone withholding their criminal history and wanting to become a citizen.

 

[xenogear]

Unfortunately there are a few cases like that, and the government is usually pretty vicious on prosecuting them. Perhaps they want to use a strategy of setting precedent. I've been thinking we should unite and demand congress to amend the law and have some statute of limitation for things like that. Let's say that in 3 or 5 years after naturalization everything still looks clean they could not strip you of your citizenship anymore.

i dont agree. If you lied about your criminal records then the gov. have the right to strip you of the status. Only the people that lied would be afraid of this.

edit....same thing 3 years ago.

Court Strips Man of US Citizenship, Setting Legal Precedent
By Jim Teeple
Miami
12 January 2005

Teeple report - Download 579k - Download (Real)
Teeple report - Download 579k - Listen (Real)




A U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta, Georgia recently upheld a lower court ruling that stripped a man of his U.S. citizenship because of crimes he committed while his paperwork was being processed. Experts say the case will make it easier for government agencies to pursue naturalized immigrants who have criminal histories.

Lionel Jean-Baptiste, a 57-year-old former restaurant owner from Haiti was a leading member of the Haitian community in Miami until he was arrested and convicted of cocaine smuggling in 1997.

Mr. Jean-Baptiste served seven years in prison for his crime, but when he was released from prison in 2002, prosecutors took him to court again, this time to strip him of his citizenship.

Mr. Jean-Baptiste they said did not fulfill the "good moral character" requirement for naturalization. Prosecutors said that Mr. Jean-Baptiste applied for citizenship while he was engaged in criminal activity, and while he was not convicted until 1997, after he became a citizen, they said he should be stripped of his citizenship.

Now, an appeals court has rejected Mr. Jean-Baptiste's appeal - not to lose his citizenship - and he could face deportation back to Haiti. His lawyer says he will ask the appeals court to reconsider its decision and will try and appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. Immigration and Customs officials have had no comment on the case.

Some leading authorities on immigration law, such as Professor Stephen Legomsky of Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, say government prosecutors were clearly using the Jean-Baptiste case as a test case to set a precedent for future denaturalization proceedings.

"Well before 9/11, starting back in the 1990s, the government was intensifying its efforts to deport non-U.S. criminal offenders," he said. "After 9/11 that drive picked up. Since then it has taken a great deal of time because these proceedings tend to linger a while. My view is that since it takes so much time and effort for the government to bring a denaturalization proceeding, and then, if successful, to bring a subsequent removal proceeding, I have to think that with all their other priorities the government would not have brought this case unless their goal was to test out the strategy for future prosecutions."

David Martin, a professor of law at the University of Virginia and a former general counsel at the Immigration and Naturalization Service during the Clinton administration, says that the Jean-Baptiste case gives government prosecutors more ammunition in their prosecution of criminals, but he says de-naturalization cases are extremely difficult and complex to bring and will only affect a very small portion of the migrant population.

"In a way there is always a certain insecurity for naturalized citizens if the government later discovers that there was some kind of fraud or illegality in the naturalization process they can move to take away citizenship and there is no statute of limitations so there is that vulnerability," he said. "But, there are only a very tiny percentage of cases that result in any effort to de-naturalize. For the government, the burden of proof is very difficult by design. The Supreme Court has held that the constitution requires the government to carry a heavy burden of proof if they are going to take away citizenship."

Stephen Legomsky of Washington University says it is important to remember that Lionel Jean-Baptiste is losing his citizenship because he did not fulfill the requirement of being of "good moral character" as required by law. Mr. Legomsky says that in this case the courts are deferring to law enforcement agencies to define what that means.

"It is not unusual for a court to defer to an agency interpretation," he said. "What is unusual about this case is that it is citizenship that is at stake, and citizenship has such a special importance in our legal system and in our society. The court is essentially allowing a law enforcement agency to take away somebody's citizenship and that I think should be of concern."

Stephen Legomsky says while the government has won the Jean-Baptiste case, he says it is unlikely there will be a flood of denaturalization cases brought by government prosecutors. However, he says, there will be more such cases, because the naturalization process now takes much longer, meaning there will be more people committing crimes while they are awaiting naturalization.

Mr. Legomsky says naturalization is now taking longer because more people are applying to become citizens," he said. "He also says people are less hesitant to apply for naturalization because more countries are now allowing dual citizenship, meaning applicants can keep their citizenship in their country of origin. Additionally, he says the government has fewer resources to process the flood of applications, making the process even slower.

http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2005-01/2005-01-12-voa35.cfm?CFID=1682324&CFTOKEN=45434086

 

[Ladybuggy]

I absolutely do not agree with the statute of limitation thing. If you lied on your N-400 and even had a chance to correct it at the Interview I am sorry. He got what he deserves. We all on here anyway I think do it the right way. Oh well. I don't even feel a bit sorry for him

 

[Huracan]

Well, that was quite a response. Calm down. There is such a statute of limitation for the Green Card. Statute of limitation is there for that, it exists for many different crimes. Why immigration law should be so hard when things are forgiven in many other situations after a number of years? Even in many religions, sins are forgiven, why suddenly everybody is taking the high road on this? Don't you think that things should be forgiven after a while? Otherwise, Great Britain would still be very sore about losing the American colonies, and we should be still in war with Japan. Forgiving and moving on is part of life, I just thing it should be part of immigration law, even if this guy lied willfully. Otherwise citizenship is in risk for ordinary naturalized citizens. Remember that many questions on N-400 are quite open ended, and who knows, today is a person who has drug problems and some violence problems, but tomorrow could be someone who stole a couple of watermelons from a watermelon field. As it is very difficult to prove intent of hiding something for the purpose of immigration that's why I would advocate for a statute of limitation, even if some bad apples get a privilege they didn't deserve in the first place. Five years seem plenty of time for something important to surface, then after that if the crime was big enough the person will have to go to jail or pay a penalty but not be stripped of citizenship, which could affect their dependents too.

 

[Huracan]

Remember that these are most likely test cases, they take the most obvious and repulsive cases, but this has repercussions on many other more ordinary naturalized citizens. Some could have been honest mistakes, or things that were not deemed important at the time of application or interview. Anyway, I understand this is a touchy issue, but I have always erred on the side of leniency towards people, that is my personality. At the end one has to do what is best for all society, and if the law is wrong now it needs to be changed. I cannot pass a law that prohibits kissing your significant other on the street, say that that is a crime, you do it, don't get caught, apply for naturalization, get approved, later on a picture of the crime shows up, get denaturalized and deported. This is an extreme case, but my take on all of this is the punishment has to fit the crime, and in general having statute of limitations is good.

 

[danny1968]

with millions of naturalized citizens in this country, I wonder how the federal government
was able to find out... it's not like he was an ex-Nazi prison guard and/or war criminal
who lied in order to get into this country...

the only possible explanation that I can think of is that someone informed the goverment.
(e.g. angry ex-girlfriends/wives or possibley his former ex-con buddies?

 

[CrossHairs]

danny,
Thats very common way such things happen. Angry ex-girlfriends or boyfriends or wives - these people know a lot of past information that is private, and once spurned they can turn real angry and do such things.

 

[danny1968]

danny,
Thats very common way such things happen. Angry ex-girlfriends or boyfriends or wives - these people know a lot of past information that is private, and once spurned they can turn real angry and do such things.

as I was a domestic violence victim caused by an angry ex-girlfriend,
I can assure you that it was hell.... fortunately, I found refugee
in America. (not to gross you out, but she stabbed me in the throat)

 

[Huracan]

I don't want to get too paranoid, but as the government improves their databases and data mining tools I think they will routinely cross check information. Perhaps any contact with USCIS will trigger a background check from them, let's say when applying for a relative. Who knows, they will be able to figure out if you had a criminal intent thought in the womb of your mother before you were born I think government is going too far intruding into people's lives. What bugs me the most is when they apply the same principles not to people with criminal record, but even with people who didn't have criminal record, but that were prosecuted after naturalization for a crime committed before naturalization. Again, the cases which have been prosecuted are egregious, but it opens the door to prosecute simpler cases. For example, let's say you sold chocolate chip cookies to a child in Alabama, and it happens to be a big crime there, but you didn't know, as selling chocolate chip cookies anywhere else in the world is fine. Then you apply for citizenship, you naturalize and a couple of months later an angry mother comes after you for having sold those cookies, you get prosecuted and convicted. USCIS/ICE can go after you and strip you from your citizenship. Does that sound fair? It doesn't sound fair to me at all, except under the most puritanical and draconian interpretations of morality and law.

 

[Jackolantern]

In this case I have no sympathy for this guy, but the statutes of limitations are designed to protect the innocent.

Suppose 20 years after you naturalize they say you lied on your N-400, even though you know you didn't lie. Now you have to prove you didn't lie, but 20 years after the fact you don't have the documents and other evidence to support your position. Maybe you got your citizenship through marriage, and now you're divorced and your ex-wife is either dead or in another country and is unavailable to testify on your behalf, or she is available but is willing to lie to mess up your life.

That's why there should be a statute of limitations for revoking citizenship. The FBI and DHS must do their thorough investigation in the time period before you get citizenship, and a set number of years afterwards (say 5 years) and if they still haven't found anything at that point, your citizenship should be yours to keep. If some offense comes to light after that period, you should be treated just as if you were a born citizen, i.e. fined or imprisoned, but your citizenship should remain intact just as it would remain for a born citizen. Otherwise, naturalized citizens continue to be second-class citizens as they have to live their whole life with the looming threat of having their citizenship wrongly revoked due to ancient allegations that they are now unable to defend against.

 

[Jackolantern]

Well, that was quite a response. Calm down. There is such a statute of limitation for the Green Card.

That is only partially true. They have 5 years post-GC during which they can initiate proceedings to revoke your card with an administrative rescission process (without going to court). But after that, they can still revoke your GC at any time by taking you to court and winning the case against you.

 

[Huracan]

Jackolantern, very eloquently said. That's exactly what I meant, and I think couldn't get the point across so clearly. I thought about the second class citizen situation but I ended up not mentioning it in any of my posts. My point was that the government always chooses cases for which they know the people will have no sympathy, cases that are clear cut, but the precedent and changes they do based on those cases are far reaching and affect a lot of innocent people.

 

[Huracan]

That is only partially true. They have 5 years post-GC during which they can initiate proceedings to revoke your card with an administrative rescission process (without going to court). But after that, they can still revoke your GC at any time by taking you to court and winning the case against you.

Agreed, I didn't spend the time to go to read the law again ( and I haven't gone now, so I trust you on this). I just remembered there was a five years statue of limitation for fraud on Green Card application.

 

[Huracan]

Again, don't want to be paranoid, but imagine the situation where one checked the wrong box when entering the country on a trip, before Green Card. Let's say it was a completely innocent mistake. Let's say this thing resurfaces now, it could potentially trip your Green Card, and therefore the naturalization that was derived from it. The thing is that the whole situation makes naturalization citizenship quite more tenuous than citizenship by birth. Immigration law is set in a way that everything might unravel at some point and take your whole family with it down like a house of cards crashing down I know I am exaggerating a bit because there are still court protections and it is not that simple to denaturalize a citizen, but it is still worrisome that I seem to hear about more cases lately.

 

[Jackolantern]

with millions of naturalized citizens in this country, I wonder how the federal government
was able to find out... it's not like he was an ex-Nazi prison guard and/or war criminal
who lied in order to get into this country...

My guess is that he was arrested again, and they couldn't find enough evidence to bring him to court for whatever he was suspected of, although the prosecutors and police convinced themselves that he did it. So they asked USCIS for assistance with digging into his immigration records to find something that could be used to strip his citizenship and deport him.

And that is all the more reason to have a statute of limitations on naturalization. If you're arrested but innocent, but the prosecution is determined to get you, your immigration history is the next weapon they can use against you if they don't have good enough evidence to pin you for whatever you were originally suspected of. So they'll go digging for any discrepancy in your N-400 or GC application that can be construed as a lie so your citizenship can be revoked. If it's a long time since you naturalized, you may not have the information and evidence to defend yourself.

 

[Thoughtful]

You raise an interesting point.
FIrst, statute of limitation was not meant to protect the innocent as Jackolantern said (due process is what was written to protect the innocent). If I can remember very well, statute of limitation was meant to prevent a person from living in perpetual fear from a prosecuter out to get him.

NOw back to the point, there are statute of limitation on very hideous crimes an example being RAPE. SO it seems a rather uneven set of laws and morality that someone used marijuana (which is legal in some countries) while they were living on the street in some country. Did not mention on his application. Many years later, a former buddy tries to blackmail him and maybe has some pics. Rejecting the blackmail bid results in call to USCIS and denaturalization and deportation.
If statute of limitation exist for such crimes, why should they not be applicable to immigration law? Are immigrants second class citizens?

Put on a hat of logic and reason. Look up cases that were allowed to roll because of statute of limitation and compare it to cases involving denaturalization and/or deportation

My guess is that he was arrested again, and they couldn't find enough evidence to bring him to court for whatever he was suspected of, although the prosecutors and police convinced themselves that he did it. So they asked USCIS for assistance with digging into his immigration records to find something that could be used to strip his citizenship and deport him.

And that is all the more reason to have a statute of limitations on naturalization. If you're arrested but innocent, but the prosecution is determined to get you, your immigration history is the next weapon they can use against you if they don't have good enough evidence to pin you for whatever you were originally suspected of. So they'll go digging for any discrepancy in your N-400 or GC application that can be construed as a lie so your citizenship can be revoked. If it's a long time since you naturalized, you may not have the information and evidence to defend yourself.

 

[Jackolantern]

FIrst, statute of limitation was not meant to protect the innocent as Jackolantern said (due process is what was written to protect the innocent).

The statute of limitations exists to strengthen due process, not instead of it. This is because due process is significantly damaged when "evidence has been lost, memories have faded, and witnesses have disappeared". The quoted phrase is frequently used in court cases involving the statute of limitations.

If statute of limitation exist for such crimes, why should they not be applicable to immigration law? Are immigrants second class citizens?

Yes, immigrants are second class citizens. If immigrants were first-class citizens they could become president and wouldn't have the looming danger of their citizenship being subject to revocation at any time during the rest of their life.

 

[Vorpal]

Yes, immigrants are second class citizens. If immigrants were first-class citizens they could become president and wouldn't have the looming danger of their citizenship being subject to revocation at any time during the rest of their life.

Excellent point. A few weeks ago, someone posted a link to an article regarding denaturalizations and N-400 denials in Seattle a few years ago. Applicants were being denied for issues as insignificant as minor traffic tickets (the IOs reasoned that a traffic violation constituted bad moral character) and a couple of applicants had denaturalization proceedings initiated against them for failing to report desk appearance tickets that were dismissed. Fortunately, all this was overturned in Federal courts, but it's still very much disturbing. Just when a person becomes naturalized and thinks that the nightmare of dealing with the USCIS is over, it's not over at all. The knowledge that acquired citizenship can be revoked at any point definitely diminishes its value.