United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 21-2584 ___________________________ Serkan Haciosmanoglu lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. Leslie Tritten, Field Office Director, SP-M Field Office, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”); David Douglas, Director of USCIS, District 15; Tracy Renaud, Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Director, USCIS; Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney General; Alejandro Mayorkas, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of North Dakota - Eastern ____________ Submitted: March 10, 2022 Filed: March 15, 2022 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, KELLY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Serkan Haciosmanoglu, a native and citizen of Turkey, filed a petition for review under 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c), seeking de novo judicial review after the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) denied his application for naturalization. The district court granted the government’s motion to dismiss the petition with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), on the ground that Haciosmanoglu failed to establish he is a person of good moral character as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1427(a). Haciosmanoglu appeals. We find the district court erred by treating Haciosmanoglu’s 2015 disorderly conduct conviction as a per se bar to naturalization, and we reverse and remand for further proceedings. As an applicant for naturalization, Haciosmanoglu has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he meets all requirements. See Nyari v. Napolitano, 562 F.3d 916, 919 (8th Cir. 2009) (citing 8 C.F.R. § 316.2(b)). One of those requirements is that he must show he “has been and still is a person of good moral character” during the relevant period. See 8 U.S.C. § 1427(a), (e); see also 8 C.F.R. § 316.10(a). Aside from the good moral character requirement, the government does not dispute that Haciosmanoglu otherwise qualifies for naturalization. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) does not define “good moral character,” though it enumerates certain classes of individuals who are barred from meeting that requirement. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f); see also 8 C.F.R. § 316.10(b)(1)- (2). No one asserts Haciosmanoglu falls into any of these enumerated classes. The INA also includes a catchall provision that allows for an adverse character finding based on “other reasons.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f). In the naturalization context, agency regulations provide that, in accordance with section 1101(f), an applicant’s good moral character must be evaluated “on a case-by-case basis taking into account . . . this section and the standards of the average citizen in the community of residence.” See 8 C.F.R. § 316.10(a)(2). However, even if an applicant does not -2- fall within an enumerated class, “[u]nless the applicant establishes extenuating circumstances, the applicant shall be found to lack good moral character if, during the statutory period, the applicant . . . . [c]ommitted unlawful acts that adversely reflect upon the applicant’s moral character, or was convicted or imprisoned for such acts.” See 8 C.F.R. § 316.10(b)(3)(iii). Haciosmanoglu does not contest the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals