United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Northern Division
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S
APPLICATION FOR NATURALIZATION AND DIRECTING BRIEFING ON
COSTS AND FEES
THOMAS
L. LUDINGTON United States District Judge
This
case has a long history. Mazen Mohammad Shweika originally
filed a petition for naturalization with the Department of
Homeland Security's (DHS) United States Citizenship and
Immigration Service (USCIS) on April 28, 2004.[1] Because USCIS did
not address Skweika's petition within three years, he
filed a mandamus action in this Court. In 2008, the Court
remanded to USCIS for a decision. Shweika v. Cannon,
No. 1:07-cv-10870 (E.D. Mich. 2008). On May 29, 2008, USCIS
denied Shweika's naturalization petition, concluding that
he lacked the requisite “good moral character.”
Shweika then sought administrative review of that decision.
Ten months passed without USCIS taking action on that
request. Finally, Shweika filed this suit seeking a writ of
mandamus directing UNCIS to conduct the review hearing or,
alternatively, a de novo review of Shweika's application
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c).
In
response to Shweika's filing of the suit, USCIS scheduled
the review hearing. At the hearing, the immigration officer
began examining Shweika on topics which had not been broached
at the original hearing that Shweika was seeking review of.
Specifically, the officer began questioning Shweika about
allegations of a domestic conflict made by Shweika's
ex-wife. Shweika's counsel ended the hearing rather than
allow the line of questioning to continue. See Order
Vacating Agency Decision and Directing Supp. Br. at 5-7, ECF
No. 70 (describing and providing a partial transcript of the
hearing). USCIS subsequently denied Shweika's petition
for naturalization, telling Shweika that
Your refusal to answer the reviewing officer's questions
left additional areas of your conduct and your character
unexplored. Additionally, “immigration officials may
draw a negative inference from a naturalization
applicant's silence.” You have therefore failed to
establish that you satisfy all of the requirements for
naturalization, particularly regarding the need to
demonstrate good moral character and lawful admission as a
permanent resident.
Agency Decision at 5, ECF No. 20, Ex. 1.
Shweika
then sought de novo review in this Court of the decision
denying his petition.
A bench
trial was held over three days in 2011. After the trial, the
Court concluded on the record that Shweika had met his burden
of proof of demonstrating “good moral character.”
In a subsequent order, the Court reiterated that conclusion,
but directed supplemental briefing on the following question:
Whether, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) and all
applicable statutes and regulations, the Court lacks
jurisdiction to grant Plaintiff's application for
naturalization because Plaintiff terminated the
Defendant's interview regarding the denial of
Plaintiff's naturalization application before the
immigration officer had completed his examination of
Plaintiff.
February
15, 2012, Order at 2, ECF No. 48.
After
reviewing the supplemental briefing, the Court entered an
opinion concluding that it did not have subject matter
jurisdiction over Shweika's appeal. ECF No. 53. The Court
rested its conclusion on the fact that Shweika had not
completed his 8 U.S.C. § 1447 review hearing and thus
had not exhausted his administrative remedies, as required by
the statute providing jurisdiction. Shweika appealed from the
dismissal of his case. ECF no. 56.
On July
25, 2013, the Sixth Circuit held that the administrative
hearing requirement of 8 U.S.C. § 1447 did not impose a
jurisdictional limitation on judicial review. ECF No. 58.
Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit reversed the Court's
conclusion that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over
Shweika's petition. However, the court stated:
Notwithstanding our conclusion that 8 U.S.C. §
1421(c)'s administrative-hearing requirement is
nonjurisdictional, it does not follow that Shweika was
thereby free to disregard the requirement, if in fact he did
so. Upon remand, we leave to the district court to reconsider
whether § 1421(c)'s administrative-hearing
requirement implies a completion requirement; whether Shweika
satisfied § 1421(c)'s administrative-hearing
requirement; and, if he did not, what nonjurisdictional
consequences attach to the failure to satisfy §
1421(c)'s administrative-hearing requirement.
Id. at 13.
On
October 29, 2015, this Court issued an opinion and order
vacating USCIS's denial of Shweika's application. ECF
No. 70. The Court reasoned that, because USCIS “has
conclusively represented that Shweika's application was
denied and his interview complete, ” the question of
whether § 1421(c)'s imposed a completion requirement
was moot. Id. at 12. Further, the order concluded
that, even if Shweika had not exhausted his administrative
remedies, remand to USCIS for a continued hearing was not
justified for several reasons. First, Shweika's suits in
this Court were both initiated after long and unexplained
delays by USCIS. Likewise, because the § 1421(c) review
hearing was partially completed, only a small amount of
evidence was outstanding. Thus, remand was unnecessary.
The
October 2015 order then addressed the remaining issues in the
case:
What remains is consideration of where Shweika's
application and case currently stands. While Shweika was
determined to have satisfied the good moral character
requirement based on the evidence presented at the
evidentiary hearing, the Court did not enter judgment
granting Shweika's application for naturalization. It
will not do so now. The Service represented in its
supplemental briefing that Shweika admitted to submitting
false or misleading information in connection with an
application for benefits under the laws governing immigration
and nationalization. The Service believes that the false or
misleading information must have been given in connection
with the current application, since the admission was made in
a follow-up application Shweika initiated. The naturalization
statute provides:
For the purposes of this chapter--No person shall be regarded
as, or found to be, a person of good moral character who,
during the period for which good moral character is required
to be established, is, or was . . . (6) one who has given
false testimony for the purpose of obtaining any benefits
under this chapter[.]
8 U.S.C. § 1101(f). If Shweika provided false or
misleading information in connection with his current
naturalization application, it cannot be granted.
ECF No.
70. at 25.
The
Court ordered supplemental briefing on that single issue. For
the reasons stated below, Defendants' request that the
case be remanded for an evidentiary hearing will be denied
and Shweika's petition for naturalization will be
granted.
I.
As
stated, above this Court has already concluded, after a three
day bench trial, that Shweika had demonstrated his
“good moral character” by clear and convincing
evidence. The limited scope of the issue now presented must
thus be emphasized. Defendants argue that, in a separate
naturalization application which Shweika filed on October 22,
2012, [2] he admitted to giving false or misleading
information while applying for an ...