United States District Court, District of Columbia
A. HOWELL Chief Judge
April 8, 2015, the government filed this action against
defendant Khaled Elsayed Mohammad Abo al Dahab to revoke and
set aside the order admitting the defendant to citizenship
and to cancel the defendant's Certificate of
Naturalization, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a). Compl.
¶ 1, ECF No. 1. Due in part to alleged false statements
and false testimony related to the defendant's
applications for citizenship, the government seeks revocation
of the defendant's naturalization and cancelation of his
Certificate of Naturalization as both illegally procured and
procured by willful misrepresentation or concealment of
material facts. Id. ¶ 35 (citing 8 U.S.C.
§ 1451(a)). For the reasons stated below, the
government's motion is granted.
defendant is a native and citizen of Egypt, who entered the
United States in 1986 on a nonimmigrant visitor visa.
See Gov't Statement of Material Facts As To
Which There Is No Genuine Dispute (“Gov't
SMF”) ¶ 1, ECF No. 12-1. Shortly after his arrival,
the defendant married Bozena Teresa Lierno, a lawful
permanent resident of the United States, whom he divorced
three years later. Id. ¶ 2. On March 18, 1989,
the defendant married Kim Annette Patterson, a citizen of the
United States. Id. ¶ 3. Two months later, based
on this marriage, Ms. Patterson filed an Immigration and
Naturalization Service (“INS”) Form I-130, a
Petition for Alien Relative, on behalf of the defendant, and
the defendant filed an INS Form I-485, an Application for
Permanent Residence. Id. ¶ 4. On July 8, 1989,
the INS approved both Ms. Patterson's petition and the
defendant's application, granting the defendant
conditional lawful permanent residence status. Id.
¶ 5. Although his lawful permanent residence status was
subject to revocation if he did not remain married to his
citizen-spouse for at least two years, the defendant divorced
Ms. Patterson just two months later on September 13, 1989.
Id. ¶¶ 5, 6. In December 1989, the
defendant married Karie A. Rottluff, a citizen of the United
States. Id. ¶ 7.
one year later, in September 1990, the defendant filed an INS
Form I-131, an Application for Issuance of Permit to Reenter
the United States, in anticipation of travel abroad.
Id. ¶ 8. In this application, signed under
penalty of perjury, id. ¶ 9, the defendant
provided a mailing address abroad in Cairo, Egypt,
id. ¶ 8(d), indicated his absence from the
United States would be for a period of sixteen weeks,
id. ¶ 8(b), and said his reason for travelling
was that he might have to donate a kidney to his mother,
id. ¶ 8(e).
19, 1991, approximately three months past the deadline, the
defendant filed an INS Form I-752, an Application for Waiver
of Requirement to File Joint Petition for Removal of
Conditions, due to his earlier divorce and remarriage.
Id. ¶ 10. To excuse the untimeliness, the
defendant claimed he was unable to file the application on
time because he was in Pakistan donating a kidney to his
mother, supporting this claim with a copy of his airline
ticket to Pakistan along with a letter purportedly from his
mother's doctor in Pakistan. Id. ¶¶
11, 12. On March 9, 1992, the INS approved the
defendant's request, removing the conditions on his
permanent resident status. Id. ¶ 13.
March 17, 1995, the defendant filed his first application for
naturalization, having been a permanent resident for at least
five years. Id. ¶ 14. In his application,
signed under penalty of perjury, id. ¶ 15, the
defendant claimed, among other things, that: (1) he resided
in Reno, Nevada; (2) he had never left the United States
since becoming a permanent resident in 1989; (3) he had been
married only twice; (4) he had never falsely claimed to have
been a United States citizen; and (5) “he had never
given false testimony to obtain an immigration benefit,
” id. ¶ 14. Although INS scheduled two
separate interviews for his application for naturalization,
the defendant did not attend either interview, and INS
subsequently denied his application as abandoned.
Id. ¶ 16.
one year later, in October 1996, the defendant filed a second
application for naturalization. Id. ¶ 17. In
this application, also signed under penalty of perjury,
id. ¶ 18, the defendant claimed that: (1) he
resided in Sparks, Nevada; (2) his only absence from the
United States since becoming a permanent resident was a trip
to Egypt from May 1995 through November 1995 for an
“emergency”; (3) he had been married only once;
(4) he had never falsely claimed to be a United States
citizen; and (5) he had never given false testimony for the
purpose of obtaining an immigration benefit, ”
id. ¶ 17.
that month, INS conducted an interview of the defendant under
oath. Id. ¶ 19. As part of the interview, an
immigration officer asked the defendant to verify each of his
answers on his second naturalization
application. Id. When asked about his
marriages, the defendant admitted that he had been married
more than once, but testified that he had only been married
twice. Id. The defendant apparently otherwise
testified consistent with his application. See Id.
At the end of the interview, the defendant signed his
application, again under penalty of perjury, id.
¶ 20, and INS approved his application for
naturalization on December 7, 1996, id. ¶ 21.
April 8, 2015, the government filed this action against the
defendant to revoke and set aside the order admitting the
defendant to citizenship and to cancel the defendant's
Certificate of Naturalization. Compl. ¶ 1. Over the past
two years, the defendant, who the government alleges
currently resides in Alexandria, Egypt, Gov't Mot.
Substituted Service (“Gov't Mot. Subst.
Serv.”), Ex. 1, Decl. of Special Agent Rami Nimri
(“Nimri Decl. II”) ¶ 2, ECF No. 5-1, has not
responded to any of the government's filings or this
Court's orders. After customary means of service proved
ineffective, on August 27, 2015, this Court granted the
government's motion, under Rule 4(f)(3) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, for substituted service of process,
and authorized the government to serve process upon the
defendant by means of email and Facebook message. See
generally Mem. Op. and Order Granting in Part and
Denying in Part Gov't Mot. Subst. Serv. (“Mem. Op.
Subst. Serv.”), ECF No. 6. The government verified that
they did so. See Return of Service/Affidavit of
Summons and Complaint Executed at 2, ECF No. 7. According to
the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), the
defendant's Facebook page “shows he was active
before receiving the Summons and after receiving the
Summons” and that the defendant “posted several
items on Facebook before and after receiving the
Summons.” Gov't Mot. Summ. J. (“Gov't
MSJ”), Ex. 21, Internal FBI Document dated September
21, 2015, at 2, ECF No. 12-2. Yet, the defendant still did not
October 31, 2016, the government filed a motion for summary
judgment. See Gov't MSJ, ECF No. 12. After
nearly three months, the Court advised the defendant, for
whom no attorney has entered an appearance, that “the
Court will accept as true any factual assertions contained in
affidavits or attachments submitted by the government in
support of its motion for summary judgment, unless the
defendant submits his own affidavits or documentary evidence
showing that the government's assertions are
untrue.” See Order at 3-4, ECF No. 13 (citing
Neal v. Kelly, 963 F.2d 453, 456 (D.C. Cir. 1992)
(holding that a pro se party must be advised, when
motion to dismiss may be converted to motion for summary
judgment, that “‘any factual assertion in the
movant's affidavits will be accepted by the district
judge as being true unless [the opposing party] submits his
own affidavits or other documentary evidence contradicting
the assertion'” (quoting Lewis v.
Faulkner, 689 F.2d 100, 102 (7th Cir. 1982)))). This
Court ordered the government to serve the order on the
defendant by January 18, 2017, by email and Facebook message,
and ordered the defendant to file any opposition or other
response to the government's Motion for Summary Judgment
on or before January 27, 2017. Id. at 4. To this
date, the defendant has not responded.