Reported / Citable
Background
Francisco Javier Montano, who was born in Mexico and admitted to the United States as a conditional permanent resident in 1987, applied for naturalization in June 1997. On his application, he answered “No” when asked whether he had ever knowingly committed a crime or offense for which he had not been arrested. The government approved his application in April 1999, and he took the citizenship oath in January 2000.
In 2003, a Texas jury convicted Montano of two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child and four counts of indecency with a child for conduct occurring between 1996 and 1999. The United States later brought this action under 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a), alleging in Count I that Montano had illegally procured citizenship because he lacked the required good moral character during the statutory period. The government moved for entry of a consent judgment, relying substantially on Montano’s declaration admitting the allegations and acknowledging that the requested relief would result in revocation of his citizenship.
The Court’s Holding
The court concluded that the government proved clearly, unequivocally, and convincingly that Montano was ineligible for naturalization when he applied and obtained approval. An applicant must possess good moral character during the five years preceding the application through the date of naturalization, and a person who commits a crime involving moral turpitude during that period does not satisfy that requirement.
At least some of Montano’s criminal conduct occurred in July 1996, within five years before his June 1997 application. Examining the minimum conduct required for indecency with a child under Texas law, the court determined that the offense is a crime involving moral turpitude. It therefore held that Montano illegally procured his naturalization and that the United States was entitled to relief on Count I under § 1451(a). The court granted the government’s motion for entry of consent judgment but stated that it would issue a separate final judgment.
Key Takeaways
- Naturalization is illegally procured when an applicant fails to satisfy a statutory eligibility requirement, including the requirement of good moral character.
- Criminal conduct occurring during the statutory good-moral-character period may establish ineligibility even when the conviction occurs after naturalization.
- The August 3 order granted the government’s motion for entry of consent judgment; the court expressly reserved the final judgment for separate issuance.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that post-naturalization evidence of earlier criminal conduct can support denaturalization when the conduct occurred during the statutory eligibility period and constituted a crime involving moral turpitude. It also reflects the government’s demanding burden to establish grounds for denaturalization by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence.
Procedurally, the order determined the government’s entitlement to relief and granted its motion, but it was not itself the separately promised final judgment implementing that relief.