Petitioner Divna Maslenjak is an ethnic Serb who resided in Bosnia during the 1990’s, when a civil war divided the new country. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the conviction, holding that if Maslenjak made false statements violating §1015(a) and procured naturalization, then she also violated §1425(a). 8 U. S. C. §1427(a)(1). 10–15. [1] We granted certiorari to resolve it, 580 U. S. ___ (2017), and we now vacate the Sixth Circuit’s judgment.

499 U. S. 83, 86a. See App. 1425(a). Unsurprisingly, Maslenjak disagrees. The Government could thus take away on one day what it was required to give the day before. Such conduct can affect a naturalization decision in a single, significant way—by distorting the Government’s understanding of the facts when it investigates, and then adjudicates, an application. Party name: Immigrant Defense Project, et al. Here is an example. The answer to that question is “no.” Although the relevant criminal statute, Article 4 1.

h�bbd``b`� � BĽ"ʁ��X+�uDX�~qD���� �I �?�� $l� � a� $0012�Y����? Ibid. . for Cert. the United States sent immigration officials to Bel-grade to assist refugees fleeing Bosnia and the ethnic cleansing taking place there. 365 U. S. 265 What, then, does that whole phrase mean? See West Virginia Univ. 414 (2010) . The immigration statute requires all applicants for citizenship to have “good moral character,” and largely defines that term through a list of unlawful or unethical behaviors.

467 0 obj <>/Filter/FlateDecode/ID[<4F5F9A8CD0D8FB4B81AA26CE590F3FEB><582CE2EA47E18248B05D84155DC40A9E>]/Index[447 30]/Length 93/Prev 151395/Root 448 0 R/Size 477/Type/XRef/W[1 2 1]>>stream The government charged Maslenjak with knowingly “procur[ing], contrary to law, [her] naturalization,” 18 U.S.C. Justice Gorsuch, with whom Justice Thomas joins, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. 6th Circuit. The Government’s assertion that any instructional error was harmless is left for resolution on remand. One of the friends puts his name in twice, and his name is drawn. Petitioner Divna Maslenjak is an ethnic Serb who resided in Bosnia during the 1990’s, when a civil war divided the new country. to Pet. Whatever the Government shows with respect to a thwarted investigation, qualification for citizenship is a complete defense to a prosecution brought under §1425(a). 447 0 obj <> endobj The Government responds to such examples by seeking to define them out of the statute, but that effort falls short for multiple reasons. h�b```�BV�L``��0p40!�60������������y���K�ە��}���ܻ�����ٹ��x6s�1ݞ�=5tf��P���� .�6J�>�(���;~^���{������\��s .Y�JJ��Â/����c��Pp�����~} .�J�-@H�����anse:��10Ht40v�(F�������/]�lш� H*��@�� I�*&�X@ We begin, as usual, with the statutory text. In 1998, she and her family sought refugee status in the United States. The statute Congress passed, most naturally read, strips a person of citizenship not when she committed any illegal act during the naturalization process, but only when that act played some role in her naturalization. Maslenjak was granted refugee status and ultimately obtained her naturalization. See 15–16. Consider if someone said to you: “John obtained that painting illegally.” You might imagine that he stole it off the walls of a museum. In August 2007, Maslenjak was naturalized as a U. S. citizen. If whatever illegal conduct occurring within the naturalization process was a causal dead-end—if, so to speak, the ripples from that act could not have reached the decision to award citizenship—then the act cannot support a charge that the applicant obtained naturalization illegally. In short, when the defendant misrepresents facts that the law deems incompatible with citizenship, her lie must have played a role in her naturalization. See, Justice Gorsuch would stop before answering that question, see, Opinion (Kagan), Concurrence (Alito), Concurrence (). . When the government can make its two-part showing, the defendant may overcome it by establishing that she was nonetheless qualified for citizenship. The District Court instructed the jury that, to secure a conviction under §1425(a), the Government need not prove that Maslenjak’s false statements were material to, or influenced, the decision to approve her citizenship application. for Cert. But would you say, using English as you ordinarily would, that she has “procure[d]” her citizenship “contrary to law” (or, as you would really speak, “illegally”)? In 1998, she and her family (her husband Ratko Maslenjak and their two children) met with an American immigration official to seek refugee status in the United States. See supra, at 5–6. Kagan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor, JJ., joined. –507 (1981); Costello v. United States, And under those rules, as we have shown, §1425(a) demands a means-end connection between a legal violation and naturalization. The broader statutory context reinforces that point, because the Government’s reading would create a profound mismatch between the requirements for naturalization on the one hand and those for denaturalization on the other. Eight co-workers jointly buy two season tickets to see their favorite football team play.

filed. Maslenjak claimed she and her family feared persecution in Bosnia because her husband had evaded conscription into the Serbian army during the war. So the issue a jury must decide in a case like this one is whether a false statement sufficiently altered those processes as to have influenced an award of citizenship. And Serbs, she testified, would abuse them because her husband had evaded service in the Bosnian Serb Army by absconding to Serbia—where he remained hidden, apart from the family, for some five years. In an effort to “operational[ize]” the statute’s causation requirement, the Court says a great deal more, offering, for example, two newly announced tests, the second with two more subparts, and a new affirmative defense—all while indicating that some of these new tests and defenses may apply only in some but not all cases. –123 (1943). The answer to that question, like the naturalization decision itself, turns on objective legal criteria. Party name: Asian Americans Advancing Justice (AAJC), et al. One additional point is worth mentioning. of Oral Arg. On this alternative reading, a person would violate §1425(a) by obtaining citizenship without the requisite legal qualifications—regardless of whether she committed another illegal act in the naturalization process. BRIAN KOLFAGE ,STEPHEN BANNON ANDREW BADOLATO and TIMOTHY SHEA , the … DIVNA MASLENJAK, PETITIONER v.UNITED STATES, on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit. i. To get citizenship unlawfully, we understand, is to get it through an unlawful means—and that is just to say that an illegality played some role in its acquisition.[2]. When the underlying illegality alleged in a §1425(a) prosecution is a false statement to government officials, a jury must decide whether the false statement so altered the naturalization process as to have influenced an award of citizenship. See id., at 779 (opinion of Scalia, J.). See id., at 783 (Brennan, J., concurring) (emphasizing that “the citizen’s misrepresentation [in a naturalization proceeding] necessarily frustrated the Government’s investigative efforts”); see also Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc., 327 U. S. 251, 265 (1946) (“The most elementary conceptions of justice and public policy require that the wrongdoer shall bear the risk of the uncertainty which his own wrong has created”).

You might think that meant John got the gun through independently unlawful conduct (. That is, a person violates the statute by procuring naturalization through an illegal false statement which has a “natural tendency to influence” the outcome—that is, the obtaining of naturalization. of Oral Arg. . She was naturalized. According to the Government’s theory, Maslenjak violated §1425(a) because, in the course of procuring her naturalization, she broke another law: In such a case, the defendant’s lie must have played a role in her naturalization. Government officials are obligated to apply that body of law faithfully—granting naturalization when the appli-cable criteria are satisfied, and denying it when they are not. Argued April 26, 2017—Decided June 22, 2017. To “procure . But Maslenjak’s professions of honesty were false: In fact, she had made up much of the story she told to immigration officials when seeking refuge in this country. And indeed, all our denaturalization decisions share this crucial feature: We have never read a statute to strip citizenship from someone who met the legal criteria for acquiring it. See supra, at 12–15.

Order extending time to file response to petition to and including November 10, 2016. No. While §1425(a) clearly imports some kind of causal or means-end relation, see supra, at 5–9, Congress left that relation’s precise character unspecified. Kungys, 485 U. S., at 774, n. 9. in any way associated with[ ] any organization, association, fund, foundation, party, club, society, or similar group[? That is because if no illegal act contributed at all to getting the painting, then the painting would not have been gotten illegally. But that is not the only time a jury can find that a defendant’s lies had the requisite bearing on a naturalization decision, because lies can also throw investigators off a trail leading to disqualifying facts. Initially, the Government must prove that the misrepresented fact was sufficiently relevant to a naturalization criterion that it would have prompted reasonable officials, “seeking only evidence concerning citizenship qualifications,” to undertake further investigation. Justice Alito, concurring in the judgment.