Good Moral Character Exclusion Requires The Conduct, Not The Conviction, During Statutory Period
UNITED STATES v. SUAREZ (December 16, 2011)
José Suarez, a Mexican native, became a permanent resident of the United States in 1978. Over the course of the next 20 years, he was arrested on a few occasions but the charges were always dismissed. In mid-1996, Suarez was engaged in marijuana distribution but was not immediately charged. In December of that year, he applied for naturalization. He disclosed his earlier charges but not the marijuana distribution activity just months earlier. He eventually became a United States citizen in May of 1998. A few months later, he was charged and convicted for marijuana trafficking. He was sentenced to 87 months in prison. A few years after his release, the United States sought to revoke his naturalization on the grounds that he lacked the good moral character required for citizenship and had illegally procured his naturalization. Judge Dow (N.D. Ill.) granted summary judgment to the United States. Suarez appeals.
In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Kanne, Rovner, and Sykes affirmed. Good moral character is required for citizenship. The relevant statute lists several qualities that would disqualify a person under the moral character requirement. One of those is a conviction for a controlled substance offense if the offense was committed during the five-year period prior to the application filing. The Court concluded that the conviction for the offense need not occur prior to the application. Suarez’s citizenship was therefore properly revoked. However, because the Government did not share the Court's view on the conviction’s timing and argued, instead, that the statute’s catchall provision applied, the Court addressed it. Federal regulations, which here are entitled to Chevron deference, provide that an applicant lacks good moral character if he violates a controlled substance law during the statutory period. The regulation does not speak to a conviction. Therefore, the Court concluded that Suarez was ineligible for citizenship under the catchall provision as well. Finally, the Court provided a third route under which Suarez would be barred from citizenship. Another federal regulation provides that an applicant lacks good moral character if, absent extenuating circumstances, he committed unlawful acts and was later convicted. The Court noted its concurrence with the Eleventh Circuit that a conviction during the statutory period was not required. Since Suarez raised no issues of material fact guarding the "extenuating circumstances" exception, he is ineligible for citizenship and his citizenship was properly revoked.
Michael Rigney practices in the law offices of GVC Ltd. in Chicago. In this blog, he reports on select