Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
United States of America
v. 	Case No. 19-cv-1113-PB
Opinion No. 2020 DNH 155
Sheikh Enamur Rahman
a/k/a Mohammed Enam
ORDER
The government has brought this civil action pursuant to 8
U.S.C. § 1451(a) to denaturalize Sheikh Enamur Rahman. 	The
government now cross-moves for judgment on the pleadings on
Counts II, III, and IV of the complaint. 1 	According to the
government, immigration documents properly incorporated into the
complaint and Rahman’s admissions in his answer to the complaint
establish that Rahman committed unlawful acts in connection with
his applications for permanent residence and naturalization,
which rendered him statutorily ineligible for citizenship.
Rahman responds that he disputes facts material to those claims
and has asserted multiple affirmative defenses.
A motion for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(c) is subject to the same standard of
1 Rahman has also moved for judgment on the pleadings based on a
statute-of-limitations defense. 	I address that motion in a
separate order.
Case 1:19-cv-01113-PB Document 37 Filed 09/02/20 Page 1 of 3

2
review as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under
Rule 12(b)(6). 	Collier v. City of Chicopee, 158 F.3d 601, 602
(1st Cir. 1998). 	Accordingly, in reviewing a motion for
judgment on the pleadings, I “must accept all of the nonmovant’s
well-pleaded factual averments as true, and draw all reasonable
inferences in his favor.” 	Rivera–Gomez v. de Castro, 843 F.2d
631, 635 (1st Cir. 1988) (internal citations omitted). 	I may
enter judgment on the pleadings “only if the uncontested and
properly considered facts conclusively establish the movant’s
entitlement to a favorable judgment.” 	Zipperer v. Raytheon Co.,
493 F.3d 50, 53 (1st Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
The Supreme Court has described U.S. citizenship “as the
highest hope of civilized men,” concluding that “such a right
once conferred should not be taken away without the clearest
sort of justification and proof.” 	Schneiderman v. United
States, 320 U.S. 118, 122 (1943). 	Given the extremely high
stakes involved, the government’s “evidence justifying
revocation of citizenship must be clear, unequivocal, and
convincing and not leave the issue in doubt.” 	Fedorenko v.
United States, 449 U.S. 490, 505 (1981) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
The pleadings in this case do not conclusively establish
that the government has met this high burden of proof.
Case 1:19-cv-01113-PB Document 37 Filed 09/02/20 Page 2 of 3

3
Accepting as true Rahman’s factual assertions in his answer to
the complaint and drawing all reasonable inferences in his
favor, see Rivera-Gomez, 843 F.2d at 635, I conclude that
disputed issues of material facts exist to preclude judgment in
the government’s favor. 	Accordingly, I deny the government’s
cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. No. 23),
without prejudice to the government’s right to renew its
arguments in a properly supported motion for summary judgment.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Paul J. Barbadoro
Paul J. Barbadoro
United States District Judge
September 2, 2020
cc: 	Troy Liggett, Esq.
Michele E. Kenney, Esq.
Case 1:19-cv-01113-PB Document 37 Filed 09/02/20 Page 3 of 3