The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Government Loses Denaturalization Case in U.S. v. Malik
The case showcases a laundry list of problematic behaviors on the part of the government
The government failed in its attempt to denaturalize Pakistan-born Afaq Ahmed Malik, and the opinion from the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas is here. The government was unable to prove its accusation that Malik had not divorced his wife in Pakistan before marrying an American woman through whom he obtained permanent residency and later citizenship.
Malik's defense attorneys note some of the significant problems in the government's behavior and case here, while you have to read the decision itself for some of the other gems. A few noteworthy ones:
- The government was sanctioned for its failure to turn over relevant documents after its investigation into Malik's divorce decree.
- The district court denied expert witness status to two supposed experts that the government brought in. One of them was neither familiar with Pakistani law nor spoke or read Urdu, the language in which the documents were written about which he was testifying.
- Numerous mistakes were made when immigration officers questioned and evaluated Malik, including failures to follow protocols regarding the way that questions were supposed to be asked and answers recorded.
This case highlights the need for skepticism about taking the government's claims at face value in denaturalization cases and thus also reinforces the crucial need for (effective) defense counsel in these situations. As Cassandra Robertson and I have argued, providing counsel to defendants not just in criminal but also civil denaturalization proceedings should not be optional.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
According to the Court, "In 2014, the government notified defendant that he was the target of a denaturalization case." Damn Trump and his anti-immigrant policies!
ICE was a rogue agency before the current administration and will be afterwards. Abolition is the only answer.
[…] from Law https://reason.com/2019/05/10/government-loses-denaturalization-case-in-u-s-v-malik/ […]
Case shows more about the government’s employees and lawyers than anything else, or so it appears to me.
Although the court gave little credence to the testimony of the two "experts", it admitted their testimony. I don't understand why. They appear to have been unqualified, and the court explicitly characterized them as "lay" witnesses. As such, they are not able to give opinion testimony, are they?
FRE 702 is probably the least understood rule on the books.
Maybe Malik's lawyers did not request that they be excluded. When the other side presents a witness to testify about some documents, and it turns out that he cannot even read the documents, why wouldn't you want that on the record?
Malik's lawyers did request that they be excluded. From the opinion linked to above:
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s motion to exclude testimony of Drew Bazil (Doc. 177) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant’s motion to exclude testimony of Ryan Long (Doc. 176) is denied.
(If the judge was going to choose not to believe them anyway, then it makes sense to admit their testimony since it is one less argument for appeal.)