FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT September 11, 2018 _________________________________ Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. No. 18-3024 (D.C. No. 2:15-CV-09091-CM) ERNEST NJAGI MUTHARA, (D. Kan.) Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________ Before HARTZ, BALDOCK, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Ernest Njagi Muthara appeals the district court’s order revoking his citizenship and canceling his certificate of naturalization. See 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a). We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm. I. Background Mr. Muthara was born in Kenya. He became a permanent resident of the United States in 2005 and a naturalized citizen in July 2008. Nearly seven years * After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. later, the government initiated denaturalization proceedings against him, alleging he had illegally procured his citizenship because (1) he was not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, (2) he failed to live in marital union with his United States citizen spouse, (3) he concealed material facts and made willful misrepresentations in connection with his naturalization application and interview, and (4) he failed to demonstrate good moral character by providing false testimony related to his naturalization application. The district court held a bench trial and concluded that each ground supported revoking Mr. Muthara’s citizenship. Mr. Muthara argues that the district court erred by ruling that (1) he willfully submitted a fraudulent divorce decree, (2) he willfully misrepresented that he lived at the same address as his wife, (3) he willfully misrepresented the number of children he had, and (4) he lacked good moral character. We affirm because his third and fourth arguments lack merit and each of these grounds supports revocation. II. Analysis “In an appeal from a bench trial, we review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo.” Keys Youth Servs., Inc. v. City of Olathe, 248 F.3d 1267, 1274 (10th Cir. 2001). The government may bring denaturalization proceedings under § 1451(a) against a naturalized citizen who has “illegally procured” his citizenship or has procured it “by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation.” Failure to “compl[y] with all the congressionally imposed prerequisites to the 2 acquisition of citizenship . . . renders the certificate of citizenship illegally procured.” Fedorenko v. United States, 449 U.S. 490, 506 (1981) (internal quotation marks omitted). The concealment provision is satisfied where “the naturalized citizen [has] misrepresented or concealed some fact, the misrepresentation or concealment [is] willful, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals