United States v. Golding

Citations: 162 F. Supp. 3d 1285; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16302; 2016 WL 543227Docket: Case No. 14-cv-80514-MIDDLEBROOKS/BRANNON

Court: District Court, S.D. Florida; February 9, 2016; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The United States government has initiated a denaturalization case against Delroy Anthony Golding under 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a), seeking to revoke his U.S. citizenship, which he obtained in 2011. A bench trial was held on January 22, 2016, where both documentary and testimonial evidence were presented. Golding represented himself, while the government was represented by an attorney from the DOJ's Office of Immigration Litigation.

Key findings of fact include:

1. Golding is originally from Jamaica and entered the U.S. on October 21, 1989, as a temporary agricultural worker through the Jamaican Central Labor Organization's Program (JCLO Program).
2. The JCLO Program facilitated the temporary employment of Jamaican laborers by U.S. corporations, with representatives identifying candidates in Jamaica. 
3. Testimony from Lascelles Reece, a former JCLO employee, indicated that the only requirement for participation was physical fitness, and individuals with known criminal records were typically excluded. 
4. Participants received identification and U.S. Form I-94 from the Jamaican government, and no passport or visa was required for entry. Annually, the program allowed approximately 15,000 workers to enter the U.S. 

The court’s findings are based on the evidence presented during the trial.

In 1989, the Jamaican government issued Golding an ID card and Form I-94 for entry into the U.S., both bearing the name “Michael Genas,” an alias of his deceased brother. Golding claimed he was unaware of this name being used and suggested the Jamaican officials were familiar with his nickname. No evidence was presented that Golding provided any documents under that name to the Jamaican government. At that time, a visa was not required for participants in the JCLO Program, so Golding did not apply for one. He entered the U.S. on October 21, 1989, and subsequently worked at Osceola Farms, Co.

On April 4, 1990, Golding married U.S. citizen Nancy May Golding, who filed a Form I-130 Petition for him, acknowledging his use of the name “Michael Genas.” Golding also submitted an I-485 Application for Permanent Residence, disclosing on it his previous name. However, he did not disclose a prior juvenile conviction for unlawful wounding in Jamaica, believing his attorney’s advice that it was unnecessary due to its juvenile status. During a subsequent interview with INS examiner Jorge Roig, Golding again failed to mention this conviction, which Roig indicated would not have likely affected Golding’s admissibility.

Golding's application for permanent residence was approved on February 13, 1991. Over a decade later, he applied for naturalization in 2001, indicating prior arrests. The USCIS denied this application on September 15, 2003. Following this, Golding requested a hearing and, during an interview in 2004, disclosed five arrests but omitted his juvenile conviction. USCIS upheld the denial of his naturalization application on December 22, 2004.

On April 21, 2005, Golding initiated a de novo review in the Southern District of Florida regarding the denial of his 2001 naturalization application under 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c). During a bench trial starting June 29, 2008, Magistrate Judge Edwin Torres found Golding failed to demonstrate good moral character for the five years preceding his application, leading to the denial of his naturalization request on July 27, 2009. Subsequently, on September 18, 2009, Golding submitted a new Form I-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence, revealing his previous name “Michael Genas” and disclosing prior arrests, including a juvenile conviction in Jamaica. In this application, he admitted to having attempted to obtain immigration benefits through fraud or misrepresentation.

On the same day, Golding also filed a Form I-601 Waiver of Inadmissibility, citing inadmissibility due to fraud under INA Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i). At trial, USCIS adjudications officer Connie Kaczor testified about Golding’s admissions of five arrests and a false representation made to procure a visa. She noted that the I-601 Waiver had not been adjudicated, likely because Golding was already a permanent resident. On August 18, 2010, Kaczor denied Golding’s Adjustment of Status application since he was legally a permanent resident. Later, on November 17, 2010, Golding filed a second Form N-400 Application for Naturalization, again disclosing his previous name and an arrest for unlawful wounding in Jamaica at age sixteen, and acknowledging that he had previously provided false or misleading information to obtain immigration benefits.

On April 28, 2011, USCIS immigration officer Solea Wright approved Golding’s naturalization application after reviewing it, but later admitted to making a mistake, believing Golding had misrepresented his citizenship status prior to naturalization, despite no supporting evidence presented by the Government. Wright acknowledged being aware of Golding's criminal history at the time of approval. Golding was naturalized on May 23, 2011, twenty years after becoming a permanent resident. The Government initiated denaturalization proceedings on April 15, 2014, filing a Complaint with four counts: Count I alleges illegal procurement of naturalization due to unlawful admission for permanent residence; Count II and Count III assert illegal procurement based on providing false testimony that adversely affected Golding's moral character during a 2008 trial and a 2007 deposition, respectively; Count IV, concerning misrepresentation and concealment of material facts, was orally dismissed by the Government. The legal framework emphasizes that the Government bears a heavy burden of proof to justify denaturalization, requiring evidence that is clear, unequivocal, and convincing. Denaturalization can occur if citizenship was illegally procured or if there was concealment or misrepresentation of material facts, with specific statutory prerequisites including lawful permanent residency and good moral character during the five years preceding the application. The Government's case against Golding hinges on claims of his unlawful admission and lack of good moral character during the relevant statutory period.

Count I addresses the Government's claim that Golding unlawfully procured admission as a permanent resident under 8 U.S.C. § 1427(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a). The Government asserts that Golding was not lawfully admitted because he allegedly misrepresented his name and criminal history, violating 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i). There are two theories of misrepresentation: first, that Golding misrepresented his identity and criminal history to gain admission into the U.S.; second, that he did so when applying for an adjustment of status in 1991. 

The Government claims Golding entered the U.S. in 1989 under the alias “Michael Genas” and concealed a prior conviction in Jamaica. For the Government to succeed, it must provide clear and convincing evidence of willful misrepresentation. However, Golding did not apply for a visa, nor was one required for his entry, as the process was managed by the Jamaican government. Testimonies from witnesses indicated that the Jamaican government handled the issuance of Golding's ID card and Form I-94 without requiring input from him regarding his name or criminal history. The Government failed to present evidence that Golding willfully misrepresented his identity to the Jamaican authorities or submitted any documentation to either the Jamaican or U.S. governments for admission.

The Government alleges that Golding willfully misrepresented his identity and criminal history when entering the United States using the name “Michael Genas.” However, trial testimony revealed inconsistencies regarding whether Golding had access to the Form I-94 and ID card prior to his arrival in the U.S. Golding claimed he did not see these documents until reaching the U.S., while other witnesses provided conflicting accounts about who carried the documents. The Government failed to present clear evidence that Golding knowingly carried or saw these documents, weakening their argument of willful misrepresentation.

Even assuming Golding knew the documents were issued to “Michael Genas,” the Government must demonstrate that this misrepresentation was material to his admissibility under § 1182(a)(6)(C). The Supreme Court's ruling in Fedorenko emphasizes that materiality is based on the effect of the false statement on admissibility. Golding's alleged misrepresentation as “Michael Genas” is not inherently material, as it would only be relevant if it led to information about his Jamaican conviction, which likely would not have impacted his admissibility.

The second point of contention is Golding's failure to disclose a Jamaican conviction for unlawful wounding. Although criminal convictions can affect admissibility, Golding's conviction at age sixteen and subsequent probation falls under an exception for individuals under 18 years old, provided the crime occurred more than five years before applying for admission. Given that Golding's conviction date (September 10, 1984) and his entry date (October 21, 1989) align with this exception, the Government has not convincingly shown that Golding’s omission of his real name and conviction affected his admissibility to the United States.

Golding's 1991 Application for Permanent Residency is challenged by the Government on the grounds that his failure to disclose a juvenile conviction constitutes "willfully misrepresenting a material fact" under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C). The Supreme Court's decision in Kungys v. United States provides guidance on materiality, indicating that a misrepresentation is considered material if it has the natural tendency to influence the decision-making of the relevant authority. Although Kungys specifically addresses § 1451, the Government and the Court agree that the same materiality standard applies to both §§ 1451 and 1182. The Government argued that Golding's omission was material due to an inability to investigate further, but this does not align with the established standard, which focuses on whether the misrepresentation affected the INS's decision, not the investigation process. The Government's assertion that the adjudicator would have taken different actions if aware of the crime does not change the fact that the decision itself would not have differed. Ultimately, the Government must provide clear and convincing evidence that Golding's omission had a natural tendency to influence the INS's decision, which it failed to do.

In 1991, Nancy Golding revealed that her husband, Golding, had used the alias "Michael Genas" on an immigration petition. Golding admitted to previously entering the U.S. under that name but failed to disclose any prior arrests or convictions on his application. Jorge Roig, the examiner for Golding's I-485 application, stated that had Golding indicated any legal issues, it would have prompted further inquiries, but his decision would likely not have changed due to a juvenile conviction being irrelevant if it occurred over five years prior. Despite Golding's non-disclosure on his 2001 naturalization application, the Government did not act on his juvenile conviction until possibly filing this action. In 2009, Golding submitted another I-485 application, disclosing his Jamaican conviction and acknowledging previous misrepresentation. USCIS denied this application not due to ineligibility but because he was already a permanent resident, without addressing his correction of past misrepresentation. Afterward, Golding's naturalization application was approved in 2011, where he disclosed his alias and convictions. This approval is significant as it indicates that, despite knowing about his juvenile conviction, USCIS still granted Golding naturalization. The Government now argues that this approval was erroneous and suggests that the court should disregard it when evaluating Golding's lawful admission in 1991.

Solea Wright acknowledged at trial that she was aware of Golding’s criminal history when she approved his naturalization application. However, when pressed on what prompted her belief that this decision was a mistake, she struggled to provide a clear rationale, ultimately suggesting that Golding had represented himself as a U.S. citizen before naturalization. The Government failed to present evidence supporting this claim. The only reference to Golding's prior self-identification as a U.S. citizen came from a 2004 administrative decision, where adjudications officer Michael Krawczyk noted Golding's request for a review hearing regarding a denial based on alleged unlawful voting. Krawczyk, however, could not recall discussing Golding's voting status during the appeal and attributed the mention of unlawful voting to a likely clerical error. Wright's only justification for her decision was based on this disputed paragraph, which both Krawczyk and the Government's attorney repudiated. Wright did not cite Golding's criminal history as a reason for her error in approving his application. Since Wright had comprehensive knowledge of Golding's criminal background and it did not deter her decision, the Government failed to demonstrate that any misstatement would have influenced the INS's decision. The Government also charged Golding with illegally procuring his naturalization based on alleged false testimony during his 2008 trial and a 2007 deposition, claiming this undermined his demonstration of good moral character as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(6). The evidence presented consisted of transcripts from these proceedings and findings from Magistrate Judge Torres, who concluded that Golding had not established his good moral character necessary for naturalization.

The Government did not successfully establish, through clear and convincing evidence, that Golding provided false testimony with the intent to gain immigration or naturalization benefits. Testimony from a January 2016 trial raised doubts about Golding's subjective intent during his 2008 testimony, particularly as he discussed events from twenty years prior and noted difficulties in recalling details due to the influence of pain medications at that time. The Government relied solely on prior deposition and trial transcripts, failing to counter Golding’s claims or demonstrate his lack of good moral character during the statutory period required for citizenship.

The advantages of naturalization, including the right to a U.S. passport, protection from deportation, automatic citizenship for children, and fundamental rights such as voting and jury service, emphasize the importance of stringent evidence requirements for denaturalization. The Government's shifting theories throughout the case complicated its position and failed to prove that Golding illegally procured his citizenship. Although Golding initially did not disclose his juvenile conviction, he had informed the Government multiple times while a permanent resident, which did not affect subsequent decisions. As a result, the Government could not show Golding's ineligibility for naturalization. The court entered a final judgment in favor of Golding, affirming his citizenship status.

Caribbean guest worker programs in the 1980s reportedly imported around 100,000 farmworkers annually. Following the dissolution of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in 2003, the responsibilities were transferred to the USCIS, ICE, and CBP; references to INS pertain to actions before this date, while USCIS applies to post-2003 actions. The case lacks Jamaican government records regarding Golding’s 1984 conviction, with conflicting accounts: a 2015 letter indicates records were destroyed in a 2004 fire, while a 2007 police memorandum states records are unavailable due to juvenile record restrictions, confirming Golding's conviction for unlawful wounding and a sentence of 18 months' probation. However, Golding asserts he was never convicted of any crimes, as all charges were either dismissed or resulted in acquittal, with his only conviction being juvenile. Golding entered the U.S. without a visa and did not require one. The legal focus is on the illegal procurement of citizenship, as outlined in 8 U.S.C. § 1451, specifically excluding the concealment or misrepresentation clause since the Government dismissed related counts. The theory of illegal procurement relies on 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C), which disqualifies individuals from immigration benefits obtained through fraud or misrepresentation. The U.S. government conceded that Golding did not falsely claim citizenship. In a previous trial, Golding bore the burden of proof regarding his denied naturalization application, but in the current denaturalization action, the Government carries that burden with a higher standard of persuasion.

A review of naturalization denials follows a preponderance of the evidence standard for the applicant's eligibility, while a denaturalization action requires the Government to provide clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence for revocation. In this case, new testimony raised doubts about whether Golding provided false testimony during the 2008 Trial. Conflicting accounts from the Government's witnesses regarding the timing of laborers receiving their ID cards and Form I-94s created uncertainty about Golding's statements. Consequently, the Government failed to demonstrate that Golding's testimony in 2008 was false. Golding has been representing himself since November 2015, after having been previously represented by counsel. As Golding has succeeded against the United States in this matter, he may be eligible for attorney’s fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), with any fee applications required to be submitted within thirty days of the final judgment, following 28 U.S.C. 2412(d)(1)(B).