Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

statutehearingnaturalizationappellant
statuteregulationnaturalizationappellantliens

Related Cases

Akindemowo v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Maka v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Ayala v. U.S. Attorney Gen.
View Case »
Balazoski v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Fuentes-Espinoza v. People
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Lopez v. Henley

Facts

Lopez is a Mexican citizen who has been a lawful permanent resident of the United States since 1960. He joined the United States Army and from 1967 – 1969 served on active duty in Vietnam, during the Tet offensive, and received an honorable discharge. In 1995, Appellant Lopez pled guilty in federal court to attempting to possess a controlled substance and was sentenced to a 108-month term of imprisonment. In 2002, while Lopez was still serving his federal sentence the INS served him with a Notice to Appear in Removal Proceedings. After a hearing, the presiding Immigration Judge determined that Lopez was removable from the U.S. for the reasons asserted by the INS.

Lopez is a Mexican citizen who has been a lawful permanent resident of the United States since 1960. He joined the United States Army and from 1967 – 1969 served on active duty in Vietnam, during the Tet offensive, and received an honorable discharge. In 1995, Appellant Lopez pled guilty in federal court to attempting to possess a controlled substance and was sentenced to a 108-month term of imprisonment. In 2002, while Lopez was still serving his federal sentence the INS served him with a Notice to Appear in Removal Proceedings.

Issue

Whether a legal resident alien, who is a veteran of active service in the Vietnam War, is exempt from the requirement of demonstrating 'good moral character' in order to be naturalized.

This case presents the issue of whether a legal resident alien, who is a veteran of active service in the Vietnam War, is exempt from the requirement of demonstrating 'good moral character' in order to be naturalized.

Rule

The Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) is ambiguous on the issue of whether veterans of active service must fulfill the good moral character requirement, and the INS's reasonable interpretation of 329 as incorporating a good moral character requirement must be upheld.

Because we find the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) ambiguous on this issue and find reasonable the Immigration and Naturalization Service's (INS') implementing regulation answering this question in the affirmative, we affirm the district court's order.

Analysis

The court found that the statute was ambiguous regarding the good moral character requirement for veterans seeking naturalization. It agreed with the Second Circuit that the INS's interpretation, which required veterans to demonstrate good moral character, was reasonable. The court concluded that despite Congress's intent to provide benefits to veterans, it was not unreasonable for the INS to require proof of good moral character.

While Lopez is correct that Congress did, through 329, loosen the naturalization requirements for veteran aliens, we agree with the Second Circuit that the statute is unclear as to the good moral character requirement. We also agree with the Second Circuit that the INS' reasonable interpretation of 329 as incorporating a good moral-character requirement must be upheld.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the district court's order, concluding that Appellant Jose Francisco Lopez was properly deported because his criminal conviction for drug possession rendered him unable to demonstrate the requisite good moral character.

For the reasons stated above, we affirm the order of the district court and conclude that a veteran alien, seeking naturalization under 329, must demonstrate his good moral character.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case because the court upheld the INS's interpretation of the law requiring Lopez to demonstrate good moral character for naturalization.

The government prevailed in the case because the court upheld the INS's interpretation of the law requiring Lopez to demonstrate good moral character for naturalization.

You must be