Olaifa v. Mayorkas

OLUKAYODE ALABI OLAIFA, Plaintiff, v. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS,^* Secretary ofthe Department of Homeland Security, et al., Defendants.

No. 18 CV 6801

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

March 18, 2021

Judge Manish S. Shah

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Olukayode Olaifa, a native of Nigeria, came to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 2009. He's highly educated, has no criminal record, pays his taxes, and works two jobs to support his family. He also regularly attends his church, donates to charity, and sits on the board of a local health club. Yet shortly after he applied for naturalization, he unlawfully voted in the presidential election. As a result, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services denied his citizenship application. He seeks review under 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c).

To be eligible for citizenship, Olaifa must establish good moral character. See 8 U.S.C. § 1427(a)(3). But the applicable regulation requires a finding that he lacks good moral character if—absent extenuating circumstances—Olaifa's unlawful vote adversely reflects upon his moral character. See 8 C.F.R. § 316.10(b)(3)(iii). He saysthat he made an honest mistake and that the totality of the circumstances demonstrates that he has good moral character. The government moves for summary judgment and argues that Olaifa's unlawful vote precludes his naturalization for now.

The undisputed facts show that Olaifa's unlawful vote reflects more negatively than positively on his moral character, and he has not provided evidence to suggest that extenuating circumstances lessen the seriousness of his unlawful vote. Because Olaifa's act is a net negative, it reflects adversely on his moral character and the government's motion is granted. Despite this seemingly harsh result, Olaifa can try again. His unlawful act precludes a finding of good moral character only as long as it falls within the statutory period (five years). That clock expires in a matter of months, and nothing bars Olaifa from reapplying and establishing good moral character then.

I. Legal Standards

Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine dispute of any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). I construe all facts and reasonable inferences in favor of Olaifa, the nonmoving party. Robertson v. Department of Health Services, 949 F.3d 371, 377-78 (7th Cir. 2020). But the moving party is entitled to summary judgment when the nonmoving party fails to make "a sufficient showing on an essential element" of his case for which he has the burden of proof. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).

II. Facts

A. Olaifa's Background

Olaifa is a native and citizen of Nigeria. He has been a lawful permanent resident since January 2009, when he and his then-five-year-old daughter came to the United States on a diversity-lottery visa. [72] at 13, ¶¶ 1-2.¹ Olaifa's wife was denied a visa under then-applicable regulations because she was HIV positive. Id. ¶ 3.² But, to provide better educational opportunities for their daughter, the family decided that Olaifa and his daughter would move to the United States anyway. Id. ¶ 4. Olaifa's wife passed away in Nigeria in 2013. Id. at 15, ¶ 6.

Olaifa lives in Illinois with his daughter and sister (a U.S. citizen). Since 2009, Olaifa has been steadily employed, met all financial obligations, paid his taxes, and never been arrested or convicted of a crime. Id. ¶¶ 8-15.³ He earned a surveyingdegree from a Nigerian university, but Olaifa decided to pursue a career in healthcare in the United States (he began as a nursing assistant in 2009, and later became a registered nurse after receiving a nursing degree). Id. ¶¶ 10, 12-13; [63-3] at 20. From 2009 until late last year, Olaifa worked at a healthcare facility in Burnham, Illinois. [72] at 15, ¶ 15. He's currently a nurse at a Chicago hospital and recently began a second job cleaning commercial offices after his nursing shifts. Id. at 15-17, ¶¶ 14, 16. Olaifa is also active in the community. He regularly attends his church and donates money to its weekly collections, and he is on the board of a local health and fitness club. Id. at 17, ¶¶ 17-19.⁴

B. Olaifa's Naturalization Application

In May 2016, after more than seven years as a lawful permanent resident, Olaifa applied for citizenship. [63] ¶ 3. Olaifa, who has been fluent in English since childhood, completed the application without an attorney; in it, he affirmed that he had never claimed to be a U.S. citizen, registered to vote, or voted in a federal, state, or local election. [72] at 3, ¶¶ 3-5.⁵ Olaifa read these questions and now understandsthat they suggest that non-U.S. citizens are not allowed to vote, but he says he was not paying attention at the time. [63] ¶¶ 26-27; [63-5] at 145:2-16.

The next month, while at the DMV to update his state ID, Olaifa registered to vote. [72] at 5, ¶ 7. Olaifa told an Illinois DMV employee that he wanted to change the address on his state ID cards. Id. ¶¶ 9-10. She collected his cards and asked if he would like to register to vote; when Olaifa replied yes, she passed him a one-page voter registration application with an "X" marking the signature line. Id. ¶¶ 11-12; [63-6] at 2. The top of the application warned, in bold capital letters: "YOU MUST BE A U.S. CITIZEN TO USE THIS FORM." [63-6] at 2. Just above the signature line, a box was checked "yes" following the statement "I swear or affirm that ... I am a citizen of the United States" and "[i]f I have provided false information, I may be fined, imprisoned, or if I am not a U.S. citizen, deported from or refused entry into the United States." Id.⁶

Olaifa has maintained that he neither read the voter registration form nor checked any boxes on it (he says he marks boxes with an "X," not the checkmark that appears on the form). [63-8] at 4; [63-5] at 93:13-21, 105:12-106:3; [69-1] at 5, ¶ 17. While Olaifa would have understood the form's terms at the time, he says that he did not read the document he signed. [63-5] at 104:14-106:3, 122:8-125:20. In any event, Olaifa handed the signed form to the employee for processing. [72] at 7, ¶ 16. He neverinformed her that he was not a U.S. citizen. Id. ¶ 15. Nor did she ask whether he was a citizen. Id. at 19, ¶ 26.

A couple of months later, Olaifa received a voter registration application receipt in the mail. Id. at 7-9, ¶ 17; [63-5] at 107:3-22. Under a section labeled "IMPORTANT INFORMATION," the single-page receipt clarified that "[t]his application does not confirm your eligibility to vote." [63-7] at 2. It also provided a phone number to contact for missing voter registration cards, which Olaifa called (he never received one). [63-5] at 125:22-127:15. On the call, he did not mention his citizenship status or ask about his eligibility to vote. Id. at 127:9-15. In fact, while Olaifa claims that he was unaware that only citizens could vote, at no point did he ask anyone about eligibility requirements—or try to look them up on his own—before voting. Id. at 116:15-19, 127:16-24.

Olaifa voted in the 2016 presidential election. [72] at 9-11, ¶¶ 18, 21. When he arrived at the polling place, one of the poll workers asked for Olaifa's state identification; he presented his driver's license but did not inform anyone at the polling station that he was not a citizen (again, he was not asked). Id. at 9-11, 19, ¶¶ 19-20, 32. No one at the polling place knew that Olaifa was not a citizen. [63-5] at 136:1-12. And no public official or poll worker told Olaifa that he could vote as a non-U.S. citizen. [63] ¶¶ 12-14.

Despite receiving warnings on his application for naturalization, the voter registration form, and the receipt, Olaifa says that he first learned of the citizenship requirement while reading a civics booklet on the day of his naturalization interviewin December 2016. [63-8] at 6. At the same time, Olaifa followed the news on a daily basis leading up to the election, had studied the U.S. government in his GED program and in college, and knew when he voted that a person must be 18 years old to vote. [72] at 11, ¶¶ 24-25; [63-5] at 59:22-61:9. He also began studying for his citizenship test before voting in the election. [63-10] at 3.⁷

But Olaifa assumed that the DMV and polling-station employees had checked his eligibility to vote. [69-1] at 5, ¶¶ 18-19. Because he had provided his passport on a prior visit to the DMV, he believed that the officials had access to centralized government records of his immigration status and voting eligibility. [72] at 17-19, ¶¶ 22-24; [63-8] at 7. When immigration officials asked Olaifa during the naturalization process about his vote in the election, Olaifa confirmed—and did not try to conceal—that he had voted. [72] at 21, ¶ 37; [63-4] at 2; [63-8] at 4-6.

The agency issued a final administrative denial of Olaifa's naturalization application in June 2018. [63] ¶ 4; [63-4] at 4. It determined that "despite any misunderstanding made on [Olaifa's] part, [he was] not entitled to register to vote or vote in a federal election." [63-4] at 3. The agency concluded that Olaifa failed to establish that he is a person of good moral character because he violated federal law when he registered to vote and voted in the election. Id. at 4.

III. Analysis

A. Jurisdiction and Standard of Review

The court has jurisdiction to review the denial of Olaifa's application de novo. See 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) (judicial review is de novo and "the court shall make its own findings of fact and conclusions of law"); Klene v. Napolitano, 697 F.3d 666, 669 (7th Cir. 2012) (Section 1421(c) confers right to an "independent ... judicial decision").

B. Good Moral Character: Statutes and Regulations

The applicant bears the burden of establishing eligibility for naturalization. See Bijan v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Services, 900 F.3d 942, 945 (7th Cir. 2018) (citing Berenyi v. District Director, INS, 385 U.S....