A precedent case has just been released online that I found very interesting. This case was released in the Third Circuit, and is called Jose Gonzalez v. Secretary of Department of Homeland Security. It involves a case where an immigrant obtained his green card by filing based on his marriage to his U.S. citizen wife, and he was caught for lying to USCIS because he secretly had another life that he failed to mention to USCIS. The immigrant in the instant case had married his U.S. citizen spouse in the year of 1999. He then filed for his two year green card, which was approved, and then he filed his application to remove the conditions. On his application to obtain his permanent 10-year green card, he placed on his application that he did not have any children.
The USCIS approved the removal of his conditional residence, and he received his 10-year permanent green card on or about August of 2004. He then decided to file for divorce, and his divorce became final on or about March of 2005, so less than one year later.
Then Mr. Gonzalez filed for naturalization in December of 2006, and on his naturalization application he stated that he has two children, one born in 2000 and his second child born in 2001. Mr. Gonzalez also amended his children’s birth certificates once he obtained his green card. He in fact had moved in with his children and the mother of his children soon after receiving his green card.
The USCIS denied his naturalization application, citing that he had lied to USCIS at the time of filing for the removal of his conditional status by stating at that time that he had no children. USCIS states that Mr. Gonzalez therefore failed to meet the requirement of good moral character, which is a requirement that all immigrants must meet in order to obtain naturalization in the U.S. His misrepresentations (i.e. lies) do not need to be material to cause an applicant to fail being a person of good moral character. One small irrelevant lie allows USCIS to find that a person lacks good moral character.
Mr. Gonzalez argued that he did not know that the two children were his children at the time he applied for his 10-year green card. He pointed to the fact that he later amended their birth certificates. The Court notes, however, that he was having relations with the mother around the time that the children were conceived. He gave her money and supported her in other ways; therefore he had sufficient knowledge that these children could be his biological children. The Court notes that he did not adopt these children, but rather he amended their birth certificates instead, further showing that he should have had knowledge that these were his children.