United States v. Latchin

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a conviction under § 1425(a) can stand only if the defendant “procured” naturalization, that is, whether “it is fair to infer that the [defendant] was actually ineligible” (quoting Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759, 784 (1988) (Brennan, J., concurring
• noting Justice Stevens’s position in Kungys favoring such an approach was shared by only two other Justices
• because the applicant’s misrepresentation had a “natural tendency to influence” the naturalization decision, it was sufficient to establish materiality
• Courts consider whether it is “fair to infer that the citizen was actually ineligible” for naturalization
• “[A]t a minimum, the procurement requirement ‘demands ... that citizenship be obtained as a result of-the application process in which the misrepresentations or conceal-ments were made.’ ” (second alteration in original
• “At the end of the day, then, the government only wins if it shows that the citizen misrepresented a material fact and it is ‘fair to infer that the citizen was actually ineligible.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).