maslenjak v united states pdf

I see no indication that Congress meant to require more. , “maddening[ ].” See ante, at 10, n. 4 (collecting cases). .

414 (2010) The Government’s contrary view—that §1425(a) requires only a “violation[ ] of law in the course of procuring naturalization”—falters on the way language naturally works.

. . And because the jury wasn’t instructed at all about causation, I agree too that reversal is required. 8 U. S. C. §1421(c). If that much is true, the inquiry turns to the prospect that such an investigation would have borne disqualifying fruit.

I agree with this much and concur in Part II–A of the Court’s opinion to the extent it so holds. Maslenjak claimed she and her family feared persecution in Bosnia because her husband had evaded conscription into the Serbian army during the war. And, of course, the lower courts have not had a chance to pass on any of these questions in the first instance. It need only establish that the investigation “would predictably have disclosed” some legal disqualification. 18 U. S. C. §1425(a), does not expressly refer to the concept of materiality, the critical statutory language effectively requires proof of materiality in a case involving false statements. MASLENJAK v. UNITED STATES. First is the difficulty of proving that a hypothetical inquiry would have led to some disqualifying discovery, often several years after the defendant told her lies. And again, the same is true with respect to naturalization. See ibid. And by so wholly unmooring the revocation of citizenship from its award, the Government opens the door to a world of disquieting consequences—which we would need far stronger textual support to believe Congress intended. This jury, however, was not asked to—and so did not—make any of those determinations. That standard reflects two real-world attributes of cases premised on what an unhindered investigation would have found. Eight co-workers jointly buy two season tickets to see their favorite football team play. –123 (1943). The government must prove that the misrepresented fact was sufficiently relevant to a naturalization criterion that it would have prompted reasonable officials, “seeking only evidence concerning citizenship qualifications,” to undertake further investigation. And the adverbial phrase “contrary to law” specifies how a person must procure naturalization so as to run afoul of the statute: illegally. The Government need not show definitively that its investigation would have unearthed a disqualifying fact. In ordinary usage, “to procure” something is “to get possession of” it. Cf. One additional point is worth mentioning. United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. In the application process, she swore that she had never given false information to a government official while applying for an immigration benefit or lied to an official to gain entry into the United States. When addressing the civil denaturalization statute, this Court insisted on a similar point: We provided the defendant with an opportunity to rebut the Government’s case “by showing, through a preponderance of the evidence, that the statutory requirement as to which [a lie] had a natural tendency to produce a favorable decision was in fact met.” Kungys, 485 U. S., at 777 (opinion of Scalia, J.)

DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 13, 2017. by special effort or means”). to Pet. The list of disqualifying conduct is wide-ranging. 485 U. S. 759 8 U. S. C. §1451(e). 485 U. S. 759, 18 U. S. C. §1425(a), makes it a crime to “knowingly procure[ ], contrary to law, the naturalization of any person.” And when someone is convicted under §1425(a) of unlawfully procuring her own naturalization, her citizenship is automatically revoked. Brief for United States 14 (emphasis added).

She wins the race but fails a drug test and is disqualified. The statute’s description of “good moral character” singles out a specific class of lies—“false testimony for the purpose of obtaining [immigration] benefits”—as a reason to deny naturalization. Id., at 72a, 74a. Second, and critical to our analysis, is that the defendant—not the Government—bears the blame for that evidentiary predicament. Measured against this analysis, the jury instructions in this case were in error.

When relying on such an investigation-based theory, the Government must make a two-part showing to meet its burden. The statute it passed, most naturally read, strips a person of citizenship not when she committed any illegal act during the naturalization process, but only when that act played some role in her naturalization.

86a; supra, at 3. i, 12–51. According to the Government’s theory, Maslenjak violated §1425(a) because, in the course of procuring her naturalization, she broke another law: Thus, someone “procure[s], contrary to law, naturalization” when she obtains citizenship illegally.

In this case, we consider what the Government must prove to obtain such a conviction. .

She has violated the law—specifically, a statute criminalizing the possession of a weapon in a federal building.

467 0 obj <>/Filter/FlateDecode/ID[<4F5F9A8CD0D8FB4B81AA26CE590F3FEB><582CE2EA47E18248B05D84155DC40A9E>]/Index[447 30]/Length 93/Prev 151395/Root 448 0 R/Size 477/Type/XRef/W[1 2 1]>>stream

Even when the Government can make its two-part showing, however, the defendant may be able to overcome it. That conclusion leaves us with a more operational question: How should §1425(a)’s requirement of causal influence apply in practice, when charges are brought under that law? %PDF-1.6 %����

filed. If that is true, the inquiry turns to the prospect that the investigation would have borne disqualifying fruit. See supra, at 5–6. In August 2007, Maslenjak was naturalized as a U. S. citizen. The Government responds to such examples by seeking to define them out of the statute, but that effort falls short for multiple reasons. They all write their names on a piece of paper and place the slips in a hat to see who will get the tickets for the big game with their team’s traditional rival. in any way associated with[ ] any organization, association, fund, foundation, party, club, society, or similar group[? According to the Government’s theory, Maslenjak violated §1425(a) because, in the course of procuring her naturalization, she broke another law: But the parties dispute the nature of the required connection. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the conviction, holding that if Maslenjak made false statements violating §1015(a) and procured naturalization, then she also violated §1425(a). Here is an example. Rather, the Government need only establish that the investigation “would predictably have disclosed” some legal disqualification.

Or else, the jury could have convicted if (1) knowledge of that prior dishonesty would have led a reasonable official to make some further investigation (say, into the circumstances of her admission), (2) that inquiry would predictably have yielded a legal basis for rejecting her citizenship application, and (3) Maslenjak failed to show that (notwithstanding such an objective likelihood) she was in fact qualified to become a U. S. citizen. Government officials are obligated to apply that body of law faithfully—granting naturalization when the appli-cable criteria are satisfied, and denying it when they are not. Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed. “Had officials known the truth,” the Government asserts, “it would have affected their decision to grant [Maslenjak] citizenship.” Brief for United States 12. 18 U. S. C. §930. She was naturalized. The text of §1425(a) makes clear that, to secure a conviction, the Government must establish that the defendant’s illegal act played a role in her acquisition of citizenship. In 1998, she and her family sought refugee status in the U.S.. X COUNT ONE ( Conspiracy to commit Wire Fraud) The Grand Jury charges Overview 1 . Interviewed under oath, Maslenjak explained that the family feared persecution in Bosnia from both sides of the national rift.

Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court. 8 U. S. C. §§1427(a)(3), 1101(f ). US States Printables If you want to practice offline instead of using our online map quizzes , you can download and print these free printable US maps in PDF format. See §1427(a)(3); supra, at 8. App. For the reasons stated, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. If the facts the defendant misrepresented are themselves legally disqualifying for citizenship, the jury can make quick work of that inquiry. As these examples illustrate—and others could be added—the language of Section 1425(a), the parties agree, makes it a crime to commit some other illegal act in connection with naturalization. Not likely. Browse United States Courts.

See supra, at 2–3.