United States v. Stelmokas
100 F.3d 302 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
U.S. citizenship is "illegally procured" and must be revoked if the naturalized citizen was not lawfully admitted for permanent residence. An individual who willfully misrepresented material facts about their wartime service to gain admission under the Displaced Persons Act was not lawfully admitted, as such misrepresentations and the underlying conduct rendered them statutorily ineligible for a visa.
Facts:
- Jonas Stelmokas was a Lithuanian army officer prior to World War II.
- In June 1941, Nazi Germany occupied Lithuania and organized armed Lithuanian units called Schutzmannschaft to assist in the occupation and persecution of Jews.
- On July 28, 1941, Stelmokas voluntarily enlisted in the Schutzmannschaft, serving as a platoon commander, guarding the Kaunas ghetto, and participating in anti-partisan actions.
- Around August 1944, Stelmokas joined the German Air Force (Luftwaffe).
- In July 1949, Stelmokas applied for displaced person status with the U.S. Displaced Persons Commission (DPC), falsely claiming he had been a teacher and laborer during the war and concealing his service in the Schutzmannschaft and Luftwaffe.
- Relying on these misrepresentations, the DPC and a U.S. vice-consul approved his application, and he entered the United States as a permanent resident on August 31, 1949.
- In 1954, Stelmokas applied for naturalization, again concealing his wartime military service, and he became a U.S. citizen on April 11, 1955.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States government filed a civil complaint against Jonas Stelmokas in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania seeking to revoke his citizenship.
- In his answer, Stelmokas invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination regarding his wartime activities.
- The district court granted the government's motion to compel Stelmokas to answer, but he did not comply.
- The case proceeded to a bench trial, where Stelmokas did not testify.
- On August 2, 1995, the district court entered a final judgment in favor of the government on six of seven counts, revoking Stelmokas's citizenship.
- Stelmokas, as the appellant, appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a naturalized citizen's citizenship subject to revocation as 'illegally procured' when the citizen obtained the required visa by willfully misrepresenting wartime service in a Nazi-aligned unit, which would have independently made him ineligible for admission to the United States under the Displaced Persons Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Greenberg, Circuit Judge.
Yes. A citizen's naturalization was illegally procured when it was based on a visa obtained through willful and material misrepresentations about wartime activities that, if known, would have rendered the applicant statutorily ineligible for admission. Lawful admission for permanent residence is a non-discretionary prerequisite for naturalization, and Stelmokas failed to meet this requirement for multiple independent reasons. His service in the Schutzmannschaft, a unit that assisted in the persecution of civilians, made him ineligible for a visa under the Displaced Persons Act (DPA). Furthermore, his willful misrepresentations about this service were material under the 'Kungys' test because they had a natural tendency to influence the decisions of immigration officials, which also rendered him inadmissible under the DPA. Because he was never lawfully admitted to the United States, his citizenship was illegally procured and must be revoked.
Dissenting - Aldisert, Circuit Judge.
No. The government failed to meet its high burden of providing 'clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence' to demonstrate that Stelmokas's citizenship was illegally procured. The government's case relied on a series of speculative inferences rather than direct evidence of Stelmokas's personal participation in persecution. Critically, the government failed to prove the factual component of materiality by not presenting testimony from any consular or immigration officials that Stelmokas's misrepresentations actually procured his visa, a standard practice in such cases. Without evidence of a causal link showing that the misrepresentations resulted in his admission, the government cannot satisfy the 'procured by' element essential for denaturalization.
Concurring - Stapleton, Circuit Judge.
Yes. While the evidence was insufficient to prove Stelmokas's personal participation in the 'Grosse Aktion' massacre, his citizenship was nevertheless illegally procured. The record contains clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence that Stelmokas served as the commander of the guard for the Vilijampole ghetto. This service, by itself, constitutes assisting in the persecution of civilians, which made him statutorily ineligible for a visa under the Displaced Persons Act. Because his guard duty provides an independently sufficient basis for finding he was not lawfully admitted, the district court's judgment of denaturalization should be affirmed.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the strict, non-discretionary nature of statutory prerequisites for U.S. citizenship, particularly the requirement of lawful admission. It clarifies that under the 'Kungys' standard, the materiality of a misrepresentation in a denaturalization proceeding is a question of law that does not require the government to produce testimony from the original decision-makers about how they would have acted. The decision solidifies that any one of several disqualifying factors under the Displaced Persons Act (e.g., assisting in persecution, misrepresentation) is sufficient to render a person's entry unlawful and their subsequent naturalization 'illegally procured,' leaving no room for judicial equity.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Stelmokas