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

hearingfelonymisdemeanordeportationnaturalizationappellant
hearingfelonymisdemeanordeportationnaturalizationappellant

Related Cases

Silveyra v. Moschorak
View Case »
Bachelier v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Sherifi v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Romero v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Klapprott v. United States
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Santamaria-Ames v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

Facts

Petitioner Manual Augusto Santamaria-Ames is a native and citizen of Peru. He entered the United States at age nine in 1966, as a permanent resident alien. His father, mother, and four sisters all live in the United States. Santamaria-Ames is married to a United States citizen, with whom he has one child. In 1974, Santamaria-Ames entered into active service in the army during the Vietnam War. His army career was not successful. He received three Article 15 violations and was counseled on fifteen occasions for disciplinary violations while on active duty. As a result, Santamaria-Ames was recommended for an early separation from the army due to unsuitability. After eight months and twenty-seven days of service, he was discharged from active service under honorable conditions. Upon return to civilian life, Santamaria-Ames entered a life of crime. From his discharge through 1989, he had twenty arrests, five felony convictions and twelve misdemeanor convictions. He was convicted of battery, assault with a deadly weapon, burglary, possession of a controlled substance, being under the influence of a controlled substance, and felony hit and run. Santamaria-Ames engaged in criminal activity even after deportation proceedings had been instituted against him.

Petitioner Manual Augusto Santamaria-Ames is a native and citizen of Peru. He entered the United States at age nine in 1966, as a permanent resident alien. His father, mother, and four sisters all live in the United States. Santamaria-Ames is married to a United States citizen, with whom he has one child. In 1974, Santamaria-Ames entered into active service in the army during the Vietnam War. His army career was not successful. He received three Article 15 violations and was counseled on fifteen occasions for disciplinary violations while on active duty. As a result, Santamaria-Ames was recommended for an early separation from the army due to unsuitability. After eight months and twenty-seven days of service, he was discharged from active service under honorable conditions. Upon return to civilian life, Santamaria-Ames entered a life of crime. From his discharge through 1989, he had twenty arrests, five felony convictions and twelve misdemeanor convictions. He was convicted of battery, assault with a deadly weapon, burglary, possession of a controlled substance, being under the influence of a controlled substance, and felony hit and run. Santamaria-Ames engaged in criminal activity even after deportation proceedings had been instituted against him.

Issue

Whether the INS and the district court may rely solely on pre-regulatory period conduct as the basis for denying naturalization.

Whether the INS and the district court may rely solely on pre-regulatory period conduct as the basis for denying naturalization.

Rule

To be eligible for naturalization under section 1440, an applicant must comply with all other requirements for naturalization as provided in part 316 of this chapter, which includes demonstrating good moral character during the one-year period prior to filing the application.

To be eligible for naturalization under section 1440, an applicant must comply with all other requirements for naturalization as provided in part 316 of this chapter, which includes demonstrating good moral character during the one-year period prior to filing the application.

Analysis

The court held that conduct predating the regulatory period established in 8 C.F.R. 329.2(d) may be considered by the INS or the district court in determining naturalization eligibility under 8 U.S.C. 1440. The court emphasized that the pertinent inquiry is whether the petitioner is presently of good moral character and has demonstrated good moral character from the year preceding the filing of his application to the present. Criminal conduct and other behavior prior to the one-year period may be examined, and whether the petitioner can establish that he has reformed and rehabilitated from this prior conduct is relevant to the determination of his current moral character.

The court held that conduct predating the regulatory period established in 8 C.F.R. 329.2(d) may be considered by the INS or the district court in determining naturalization eligibility under 8 U.S.C. 1440. The court emphasized that the pertinent inquiry is whether the petitioner is presently of good moral character and has demonstrated good moral character from the year preceding the filing of his application to the present. Criminal conduct and other behavior prior to the one-year period may be examined, and whether the petitioner can establish that he has reformed and rehabilitated from this prior conduct is relevant to the determination of his current moral character.

Conclusion

The court reversed and remanded the district court's judgment, because a hearing was required to determine whether appellant noncitizen veteran had been of good moral character during the one-year period prior to filing his naturalization application.

The court reversed and remanded the district court's judgment, because a hearing was required to determine whether appellant noncitizen veteran had been of good moral character during the one-year period prior to filing his naturalization application.

Who won?

The appellant, Santamaria-Ames, prevailed because the court found that he was entitled to a hearing to demonstrate his good moral character during the relevant period.

The appellant, Santamaria-Ames, prevailed because the court found that he was entitled to a hearing to demonstrate his good moral character during the relevant period.

You must be