Background Details
This case is from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in 2019.The case involves an immigrant named "Phoday Phattey", originating from The Gambia.
The case involves whether revocation of citizenship is not permitted under a 5-year statute of limitations set by United States Code 28 section 2462.
The Problem
Phoday Phattey, also known as Foday Fattey, entered the country as a Gambian immigrant and eventually entered an application for asylum under the name Foday Fattey. The asylum was not granted, so Mr. Phattey then moved to another state and obtained documents under the new name Phoday Phattey.He then applied for asylum, residency, and eventually citizenship, all of which were granted in that order. During a review of citizenship, the government eventually found that the documents had been procured under fraudulent means, and a deportation had been ordered.
Case Outcome
Ultimately, the government concluded that revocation of citizenship is not bound by the 5-year statute of limitations from 28 U.S.C section 2462. The reasoning behind this is that revocation of citizenship (denaturalization) does not constitute as a penalty, but rather as a means to rectify the status of the immigrant before they had attained citizenship through deceitful purposes.
The reasoning behind the defendant's defense is that a case named Kokesh vs SEC had set the precedent where sanctions are bound under the 5-year statute of limitations. Since this case involved monetary sanctions, (pecuniary sanctions) and the sanctions were applied as a penalty under legal definitions, then the 5-year statute of limitations did apply in this case.
Overall
Denaturalization is permitted when naturalization was attained through means of fraud or by withholding information, as laid out in Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952. This same act does not identify denaturalization as constituting a penalty, a view which the Supreme Court holds, and therefore the defense of invoking a 5-year statute of limitations was reasonable, but not strong enough to hold out in the courts.
My most interesting observation was that Mr. Phattey also argued that denaturalization did constitute as a penalty because the citizenship of family members, who had gained naturalization through him, was also revoked.
However, the court upheld that this was not a penalty but rather a means to restore their status before the unlawful naturalization.
As a naturalized citizen who gained my status through my mother, this was particularly interesting to me because I had wondered whether any of his family had been affected. Ultimately, I agree with the courts decision to revoke his citizenship because it violated the lawful path to immigration that many Americans, including my family, had to pass through in order to prove loyalty and commitment to the United States.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/18-35998/18-35998-2019-12-05.html
My most interesting observation was that Mr. Phattey also argued that denaturalization did constitute as a penalty because the citizenship of family members, who had gained naturalization through him, was also revoked.
However, the court upheld that this was not a penalty but rather a means to restore their status before the unlawful naturalization.
As a naturalized citizen who gained my status through my mother, this was particularly interesting to me because I had wondered whether any of his family had been affected. Ultimately, I agree with the courts decision to revoke his citizenship because it violated the lawful path to immigration that many Americans, including my family, had to pass through in order to prove loyalty and commitment to the United States.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/18-35998/18-35998-2019-12-05.html
