## Facts

- Antonio Medina Puerta, a Spanish national, entered the United States on a student visa (1981) and became a lawful permanent resident (1984).
- In February 1990, Puerta applied for naturalization and left blank the application question asking for “any other names” used.
- He also answered “None” to questions asking whether he had been absent from the United States since becoming a permanent resident.
- In June 1990, an immigration examiner interviewed Puerta; the examiner lacked specific memory of the interview but testified to a standard practice of placing applicants under oath and reviewing each application answer, with markings on the form reflecting oral confirmation.
- Puerta was naturalized shortly after the interview.
- In February 1991, Puerta was arrested in connection with an attempted bank transaction involving checks payable to other names and linked to an account that had been closed.
- A search after arrest uncovered multiple driver’s licenses in different names and a Spanish passport in another name that had been used to enter the United States in 1986; the identifications predated the naturalization application.
- The government charged Puerta with unlawful procurement of citizenship under 18 U.S.C. § 1425(a), alleging he knowingly obtained naturalization “contrary to law” by concealing other identities and foreign travel.
- A jury convicted Puerta; the district court imposed a sentence and voided his naturalization certificate under 8 U.S.C. § 1451(f).

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Puerta “knowingly procured” naturalization “contrary to law” under 18 U.S.C. § 1425(a).
2. Whether Puerta’s misstatements or omissions on the naturalization application were material to naturalization eligibility.
3. Whether the government proved scienter, including willful misrepresentation or concealment with awareness that the naturalization grant would be unlawful.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed Puerta’s conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1425(a).
- The court held the evidence was insufficient to prove that Puerta’s omissions and misstatements were material to his eligibility for naturalization.
- The court also held the evidence was insufficient to prove the required mental state that Puerta knowingly and willfully procured naturalization contrary to law.
- Because the § 1425(a) conviction could not stand, the related criminal judgment consequences, including the voiding of naturalization under 8 U.S.C. § 1451(f), were not sustainable on that basis.

## Legal Principles

- A conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1425(a) requires proof that the defendant knowingly procured or attempted to procure naturalization contrary to substantive naturalization law.
- The government must show more than falsity on a naturalization application; it must prove a willful misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact.
- A fact is material only if it has a natural tendency to influence the naturalization decision in a way tied to legal eligibility or probable denial, not merely because it could prompt further investigation.
- The “knowingly procures” element requires proof that the defendant acted consciously and deliberately, with awareness that the misrepresentation or concealment would result in an unlawful grant of citizenship.
- In assessing illegality under § 1425(a), courts may evaluate materiality and illegality in a manner consistent with civil denaturalization concepts, while applying the criminal burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit set aside Puerta’s § 1425(a) conviction because the government did not connect the alleged omissions (other names and travel) to a demonstrated legal ineligibility for citizenship or show beyond a reasonable doubt that Puerta willfully and knowingly procured naturalization that was unlawful.


United States v. Puerta, 982 F.2d 1297 (9th Cir. 1992)