NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 20-1439 __________ MAHNAZ HASER, Appellant v. KRISTAL BROWN, USCIS; MICHAEL HORVATH, USCIS ____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 2-18-cv-01383) Magistrate Judge: Honorable Maureen P. Kelly ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) August 3, 2020 Before: KRAUSE, MATEY, and ROTH, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: February 4, 2021) ___________ OPINION* ___________ PER CURIAM * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Mahnaz Haser appeals from the District Court’s judgment against her in this naturalization proceeding under 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c). We will affirm. I. In 2001, Haser received asylum in the United States on the basis of alleged persecution in Iran. She later adjusted her status to lawful permanent resident (“LPR”) on the basis of that relief. During Haser’s asylum proceeding, she claimed that she is an Iranian citizen and that Iranian officials detained and tortured her from 1994 until she fled to the United States in 2000. In fact, however, Haser was and is a citizen of Sweden and lived in Sweden from 1987 through 2000. She also traveled between Sweden and the United States on a Swedish passport five times in 1999. Haser did not disclose these facts, all of which she now concedes, in her applications or interviews. Haser later filed a naturalization application with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). During the naturalization process, Haser finally disclosed certain facts regarding her Swedish background (while continuing to misrepresent others), and USCIS learned other such facts through other means. On the basis of that information, USCIS ultimately determined that Haser’s asylum and resultant LPR status were based on false information and that she never qualified for asylum from Iran because her Swedish citizenship showed that she had “firmly resettled” in that country. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(vi). Thus, USCIS determined that Haser was ineligible for naturalization and denied her application. 2 Haser exhausted her administrative remedies and then filed with the District Court the complaint at issue here seeking review of the denial of her naturalization application. USCIS filed a motion to dismiss Haser’s complaint or for summary judgment. The District Court, acting through a Magistrate Judge on the parties’ consent, properly treated the motion as one for summary judgment and granted it. Haser appeals. II. The District Court had jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c), and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See Koszelnik v. Sec’y DHS, 828 F.3d 175, 179 n.5 (3d Cir. 2016). Our review is de novo, see id., and we apply the principles summarized in Koszelnik, 828 F.3d at 179, and Saliba v. Attorney General, 828 F.3d 182, 189 (3d Cir. 2016). Having done so, we will affirm substantially for the reasons explained by the District Court. In brief, Haser is eligible for naturalization only if she “has been lawfully admitted ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals