Naturalized citizen charged for not disclosing foreign criminal record

Example of a naturalized citizen who has been convicted of immigration fraud for not disclosing his foreign criminal record. The fraud only surfaced after he was recently charged with being a terrorist. It will be interesting to see if they start denaturalization proceedings against him.

http://www.wral.com/news/news_briefs/story/10176010/

In a case such as this no separate proceeding is required. Upon conviction, the underlying naturalization is void ab initio (void from the start) and the admission to citizenship shall be set aside by the court of conviction.

From a DOJ report to Congress found at: http://searchjustice.usdoj.gov/sear...heet=default_frontend&site=default_collection with other mentions or directly at: http://www.justice.gov/jmd/2012justification/pdf/fy12-nsd-justification.pdf

".... On November 29, 2010, in the, a Grand Jury returned second superseding indictment charging Anes Subasic with two counts unlawful procurement of naturalization, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1425(a). These allegations stem from answers provided by Subasic on his own immigration paperwork in which he falsely represented that he had never been charged with any criminal conduct. The evidence displays that in fact Subasic had been charged in Serbia with committing crimes on at least ten occasions. Subasic cut a fellow student in the leg with a knife while at school, on another occasion fired a 7.62 weapon into the hand of a student, on another occasion discharged two magazines (60 rounds) from a 7.62 caliber firearm causing property damage and striking one victim in the leg and a second in the shoulder, on a separate occasion fired a 7.62 cal. striking a victim in the leg, in a separate incident fired shots from a pistol into a dance club ceiling and threw a grenade into the club injuring 8 people, on another occasion unlawfully entered a warehouse and stole cigarettes valued at 49,220 German Marks, on another occasion beat an individual in the head with a pistol over a parking space, in a separate instance beat an individual with electrical cables, and on a separate occasion and in an attempt to avoid arrest placed a trip mine of 200 grams of PED explosives above a doorframe along with an antipersonnel mine in the hallway of his apartment." At p. 20

18 USC § 1425. Procurement of citizenship or naturalization unlawfully

(a) Whoever knowingly procures or attempts to procure, contrary to law, the naturalization of any person, or documentary or other evidence of naturalization or of citizenship; or

(b) Whoever, whether for himself or another person not entitled thereto, knowingly issues, procures or obtains or applies for or otherwise attempts to procure or obtain naturalization, or citizenship, or a declaration of intention to become a citizen, or a certificate of arrival or any certificate or evidence of nationalization or citizenship, documentary or otherwise, or duplicates or copies of any of the foregoing—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 25 years (if the offense was committed to facilitate an act of international terrorism (as defined in section 2331 of this title)), 20 years (if the offense was committed to facilitate a drug trafficking crime (as defined in section 929(a) of this title)), 10 years (in the case of the first or second such offense, if the offense was not committed to facilitate such an act of international terrorism or a drug trafficking crime), or 15 years (in the case of any other offense), or both.


INA 340 - REVOCATION OF NATURALIZATION [8 U.S.C. 1451]

**********
(e) When a person shall be convicted under section 1425 of title 18 of the United States Code of knowingly procuring naturalization in violation of law, the court in which such conviction is had shall thereupon revoke, set aside, and declare void the final order admitting such person to citizenship, and shall declare the certificate of naturalization of such person to be canceled. Jurisdiction is hereby conferred on the courts having jurisdiction of the trial of such offense to make such adjudication.

(f) Whenever an order admitting an alien to citizenship shall be revoked and set aside or a certificate of naturalization shall be canceled, or both, as provided in this section, the court in which such judgment or decree is rendered shall make an order canceling such certificate and shall send a certified copy of such order to the Attorney General. The clerk of court shall transmit a copy of such order and judgment to the Attorney General. A person holding a certificate of naturalization or citizenship wh ich has been canceled as provided by this section shall upon notice by the court by which the decree of cancellation was made, or by the Attorney General, surrender the same to the Attorney General.


(g) The provisions of this section shall apply not only to any naturalization granted and to certificates of naturalization and citizenship issued under the provisions of this title, but to any naturalization heretofore granted by any court, and to all certificates of naturalization and citizenship which may have been issued heretofore by any court or by the Commissioner based upon naturalization granted by any court, or by a designated representative of the Commissioner under the provisions of section 702 of the Nationality Act of 1940, as amended, or by such designated representative under any other Act.

(h) Nothing contained in this section shall be regarded as limiting, denying, or restricting the power of the Attorney General to correct, reopen, alter, modify, or vacate an order naturalizing the person.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Good info Bigjoe5.
It's scary to think that the individual obtained US citizenship in the 1990's and has only now been found out. His criminal background is pretty serious;the equivalent of being a felon in the US.
 
But, does the court have to do something to do some finding that the person "knowingly" obtained citizenship in violation of the law? Basically, unless the court is charging the person on violating that law nothing should happen to the underlying citizenship. Am I right?
 
But, does the court have to do something to do some finding that the person "knowingly" obtained citizenship in violation of the law? Basically, unless the court is charging the person on violating that law nothing should happen to the underlying citizenship. Am I right?

What do you mean? The article mentioned that the immigration case was separate from his terrorism case. Prosecutors charged him with lying on the N-400, and the court evaluated the evidence.

A North Carolina man charged in a terrorist plot to attack a Marine base has been found guilty on immigration violations in a separate case.

A jury on Friday found Anes Subasic guilty on two counts. Prosecutors say Subasic lied about having a criminal record when he applied in the 1990s to become a U.S citizen.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
But, does the court have to do something to do some finding that the person "knowingly" obtained citizenship in violation of the law? Basically, unless the court is charging the person on violating that law nothing should happen to the underlying citizenship. Am I right?

You did not read the statute. 18 USC 1425(a) is "knowingly procures or attempts to..."
 
What do you mean? The article mentioned that the immigration case was separate from his terrorism case. Prosecutors charged him with lying on the N-400, and the court evaluated the evidence.

My bad, I didn't read the article before I posted my comment. Sorry.
 
You did not read the statute. 18 USC 1425(a) is "knowingly procures or attempts to..."

Sorry, part of my confusion came from not reading the article before I posted my question. Now it is clear that there are two cases, the immigration one and the terrorist one. Anyway, I would expect some burden of proof that the concealment is "knowing", not an oversight. Knowingly to me means done consciously.
 
Sorry, part of my confusion came from not reading the article before I posted my question. Now it is clear that there are two cases, the immigration one and the terrorist one. Anyway, I would expect some burden of proof that the concealment is "knowing", not an oversight. Knowingly to me means done consciously.

Title 18 USC is a CRIMINAL statute and as such the burden of proof is on the government to prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt". Dude got convicted of a CRIME only because the government met its burden of proof.

Title 8 USC (Immigration and Nationality Act or INA) is a CIVIL statute and the highest burden of proof is "clear and convincing" evidence but the majority of the benefits as well as penalties are set at the "preponderance of the evidence" standard. Preponderance means "more likely than not" or "50.1% or more" or "probably true".
 
Top