Abusamhadaneh v. Taylor (873 F. Supp. 2d 682, 2012)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

JAMES C. CACHERIS, District Judge.

Jamal Abusamhadaneh’s Petition for Review of Denial of Application for Naturalization Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) is before the Court following a bench trial held on March 13, 14, and 15, 2012. After considering the relevant evidence, including exhibits and witness testimony at trial, the Court finds that Mr. Abusamhadaneh is a person of good moral character and meets the requirement for naturalization set out in the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.

I. Findings of Fact

A. Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s Background

Jamal Abusamhadaneh is a natural born citizen of Jordan. (March 13, 2012 Tr. [Dkt. 49] (“Tr. I”) 29:9.) After visiting the United States as a student in 1994 through a program run by the Department of State, Mr. Abusamhadaneh returned in 1996 on a visitor visa and then remained in the country on a student visa. (Tr. I 29:21-33:13.) While here, he studied English and obtained a masters degree in information systems. (Tr. I 32:22-33:22.) Mr. Abusamhadaneh has been a lawful permanent resident of the United States since July 10, 2002. (Tr. I 37:17-18.)

From 1999 to 2004, Mr. Abusamhadaneh worked for the American Muslim Foundation (AMF), which sponsored his H-1b visa. (Tr. I 33:25-36:18.) He was AMF’s director of education and then worked for the organization in information systems. (Tr. I 35:14-37:9.) Mr. Abusamhadaneh also worked for KForce, Inc. and then CoreStaff Technology Group in information technology technical support. (Tr. I 45:14-23.) In 2005, Mr. Abusamhadaneh was hired by the Fairfax County Police Department as a network analyst. (Tr. I 46:1-13.) Mr. Abusamhadaneh resigned from the Fairfax County Police Department on December 11, 2006. (Tr. I 47:5-9.) He then worked for a contractor in the health care industry until July 2008 when he started working for his current employer, the United Health Group. (Tr. I 47:11-25.) He is a senior network consultant. (Tr. I 48:1-2.)

Mr. Abusamhadaneh resides in Falls Church, Virginia with his family. (Tr. I 29:4-7.) Mr. Abusamhadaneh has four children and lives with his wife who obtained citizenship in 2008. (Tr. I 44:17-45:9.) Mr. Abusamhadaneh is a practicing Muslim. (Tr. I 52:19-21; 54:13-21.) He primarily prays at the Dar al-Hijra mosque, as it is the closest mosque to his residence. (Id.) Mr. Abusamhadaneh presented two credible witnesses who discussed Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s helpful character and his reputation as someone who is very honest and truthful. (See March 12, 2012 Tr. [Dkt. 50] (“Tr. II”) 85:21-89:13; 95:17-97:5.)

B. Naturalization Proceedings

On February 13, 2008, Mr. Abusamhadaneh submitted his N^tOO Application for Naturalization (the Application) along with appropriate supporting documentation and the required fee. (Appl. [Joint Exhibit (JE) 1] at 10; Stipulation of Uncontested Facts [Dkt. 27] (Stip.) at 1.) In addition to Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s signature, the Application contains the signature of his attorney, Ashraf Nubani, as the preparer of the Application. (Id.) Mr. Abusamhadaneh retained Mr. Nubani to assist with preparation of the Application and with the ensuing naturalization proceedings. (Tr. I 48:24-51:11.)

i. October 5, 2009 Interview

The processing of Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s Application took much longer than the usual six months, so after contacting United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Mr. Abusamhadaneh threatened to file a writ of mandamus. (Tr. I 231:17-232:7.) On October 5, 2009, Mr. Abusamhadaneh finally attended his N-400 naturalization interview at the US-CIS Washington District Office in Fairfax, Virginia. (Stip. at 1.) He was accompanied by Mr. Nubani. (Id.) The interview was conducted by Senior District Adjudications Officer Malgorzata Lutostanski and a portion of it was videotaped. (Id.)

At the start of the hearing Officer Lutostanski stated:

Please let me know at any time if you need to take a break to go to the bathroom or have a drink of water or anything like that. Also if you don’t understand any of the questions that I ask please ask me for clarification. Also just so you know if at any time you choose to stop the interview or you don’t want to answer any questions that I ask you, a negative inference may be drawn from your silence. Present at this interview is your attorney of record, Asraf Nubani. Please understand that your attorney’s role at this interview is to ensure that your legal rights are protected. Your attorney may advise you on points of law, but he cannot respond to questions that are directed at you. These proceedings will be conducted under oath. And all statements you make constitutes (sic) sworn testimony.

(October 5, 2009 N-400 Hearing Partial Tr. [JE 7] (Tr. 2009) 3:17-4:13.) After asking Mr. Abusamhadaneh a series of questions, Officer Lutostanski had him verify that everything stated in the Application was the truth and sign the Application. (Tr. II 48:4-8.) Officer Lutostanski signed the Application herself and conducted a language and civics test. (March 15, 2012 Partial Tr. [Dkt. 51] (“Tr. IIIA”) 48:4-8.)

Officer Lutostanski then asked Mr. Abusamhadaneh numerous additional questions. (Tr. IIIA 48:9-11.) After asking the questions, she informed him that she was going to put in a request for additional evidence. (Tr. I 95:17-19;Tr. IIIA 31:4-9.) A drink of water was requested, and Officer Lutostanski informed Mr. Abusamhadaneh and Mr. Nubani that they could wait in the waiting area. (Tr. IIIA 31:10-15.) This “break” in the interview lasted approximately ten to fifteen minutes. (Tr. I 95:21-24; 245:18-20; Tr. II 233:4-20.)

When Officer Lutostanski returned with the request, Mr. Nubani asked that Mr. Abusamhadaneh have more time to clarify some points. (Tr. I 97:7-98:18; Tr. II 234:5-11.) Officer Lutostanski agreed and reminded Mr. Abusamhadaneh that he was still under oath. (Id.) At that point, Mr. Abusamhadaneh provided additional information regarding his response to particular questions. (Tr. I 100:2-6.) During this portion of the interview, Officer Lutostanski took a series of notes, portions of which Mr. Abusamhadaneh initialed at the end of the interview. (Tr. I 143:4; Tr. II 235:13-25.)

On April 30, 2010, USCIS issued a decision denying Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s N-400 Application (the 2010 Decision). (JE 11; see also JE 2.) The 2010 Decision concludes Mr. Abusamhadaneh lacked the “good moral character” required for naturalization because he provided false testimony for the purpose of obtaining naturalization. (JE 11 at 2.) The 2010 Decision expresses concern with Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s responses to the following topics: membership and association with the Dar al Hijra mosque and the Muslim Brotherhood, association with Abdurahman Alamoudi, and detentions by Jordanian officials. (JE 11 at 5-7.)

ii. October 5, 2009 Hearing

On June 2, 2010, Mr. Abusamhadaneh filed a Request for a N-336 Hearing on a Decision in Naturalization Proceedings with USCIS. (Stip. at 2.) In support, he submitted a sworn affidavit from himself and from Mr. Nubani to explain and rebut the conclusion by USCIS that he provided false testimony during the N-400 interview. (Id.) On December 29, 2010, Mr. Abusamhadaneh appeared for his N-336 hearing at the USCIS Washington District Office accompanied by Mr. Nubani. (JE 12.) He was interviewed by Senior District Adjudications Officer June Williams and the interview was videotaped. (Id.)

On July 28, 2011, USCIS issued a decision affirming the prior denial of his Application (the 2011 Decision). (JE 13.) The 2011 Decision, drafted by Officer Williams, concludes that “you have failed to overcome the denial of your application dated April 30, 2010, as it pertains to a finding that you are a person of good moral character.” (JE 13 at 5.) The 2011 Decision states that during the N-400 interview Mr. Abusamhadaneh was not initially forthcoming about his “associations with Mr. Alamoudi and various organizations.” (JE 13 at 4.) It states that “the reason you came back and asked for the second portion of the interview was because you knew your earlier minimizations of your associations with various groups and persons would not deceive USCIS.” (Id.)

Mr. Abusamhadaneh disputes the determination that he lacks good moral character for purposes of naturalization as required under 8 U.S.C. § 1427. On September 2, 2011, he filed with this Court a Petition for Review of Denial of Application for Naturalization Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) and Request for De Novo Hearing. [Dkt. 1.] The Defendants in this case are: Sarah Taylor, District Director, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Washington District Office; Kimberly Zanotti, Field Office Director, USCIS, Washington District Office; Alejandro Mayorkas, Director, USCIS; Michael Aytes, Acting Deputy Director, USCIS; Janet Napolitano, Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security; and Eric H. Holder, Jr., United States Attorney General. A bench trial was held on March 13, 14, and 15, 2012, and Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s Petition is now before the Court.

C. Preliminary Issues

Before examining Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s testimony, it is helpful to first address two overarching issues in this case. Both created confusion during Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s N-400 interview and, through no fault of his own, mistakenly contributed to a perception that Mr. Abusamhadaneh was not forthcoming.

i. AMF & FBI Memorandum

The first issue is that Officer Lutostanski relied on information in a FBI report that was discredited as inaccurate during the trial. Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s first employer in the United States, the American Muslim Foundation, is no longer in existence. (Tr. I 38:11-39:13.) It was dissolved in 2004 after its president, Abdurahman Alamoudi, was convicted of various crimes. Mr. Alamoudi subsequently gave numerous interviews with the FBI, which resulted in “302 reports” prepared by FBI agents. (Tr. II 130:9-133:1.) One of the reports prepared stated that a “source” (i.e., Mr. Alamoudi) identified Mr. Abusamhadaneh as someone who was affiliated with certain organizations, including the Muslim Brotherhood and the Muslim American Society. (FBI Report [Defendant Exhibit (DE) 1].) During the trial, Mr. Alamoudi credibly testified that some of the information in the report was inaccurate, particularly the statement that Mr. Abusamhadaneh told Mr. Alamoudi that he was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. (Tr. II 132:13-22; 142:19-143:16.) The evidence presented during the trial eon-firmed that Mr. Abusamhadaneh has never been a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Officer Lutostanski obtained the FBI report prior to Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s N-400 interview and relied on it as the basis for her questioning. (Tr. II 185:3-5; 222:4-13; 223:4-6.) But she was unaware that the report contained inaccuracies and she never presented it to Mr. Abusamhadaneh for inspection. (Tr. II 183:11— 184:22; 215:3-8; Tr. IÍIA 43:6-9.) Officer Lutostanski submits that her general description of the information in the report sufficed for “inspection,” but as the Court will address later, her description fell far short of capturing the details and context of the report. By failing to provide the report to Mr. Abusamhadaneh, Officer Lutostanski’s actions appear to conflict with the Adjudicator’s Filed Manual, which states that a petitioner must be afforded an opportunity to inspect and rebut adverse information. (Tr. IIIA 41:20-44:20.) Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s interview was the first time Officer Lutostanski handled a complex case with this type of “positive name check” from the FBI. (Tr. IIIA 5:1-7:1; 22-24.) She explained that she did not have much experience with such an atypical case, and was not aware if there were different procedures she should follow. (Tr. IIIA 5:25-8:21.) As a result, Mr. Abusamhadaneh was never given the opportunity to examine the report and potentially identify the inaccuracies and explain the source of confusion.

Because Officer Lutostanski believed that Mr. Abusamhadaneh was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, she formed the mistaken impression that Mr. Abusamhadaneh was trying to deceive her when he did not mention the Muslim Brotherhood during the interview and repeatedly denied being a member of any organization. Officer Lutostanski testified that the information from the FBI report was a significant factor in her decision to deny Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s Application. (Tr. IIIA 45:13-17.) She concedes she does not know what she would have concluded regarding Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s explanations if she was aware that the FBI report, was unreliable and inaccurate. (Tr. IIIA 40:3-9.)

ii. Mr. Nubani

The second issue is the. fact that Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s attorney, Mr. Nubani, advised Mr. Abusamhadaneh not to disclose his relationship with religious organizations. Mr. Abusamhadaneh credibly testified that when preparing his Application his attorney advised him that religious organizations were not responsive to general questions about membership and associations. More specifically, Mr. Abusamhadaneh understood Mr. Nubani to advise him that he had a right not to list religious organizations, and therefore he was not supposed to list religious organizations. (Tr. I 53:1-23.) Mr. Abusamhadaneh also understood Mr. Nubani’s advice to apply to answers to the interview questions. (Tr. I 81:23-82:7; 86:18-87:22; 193:23-24; 194:24-195:1.) Mr. Abusamhadaneh credibly testified that he was willing to disclose his relationships with religious organizations and wanted to provide the information, but that he ultimately relied on his attorney’s advice about how the system works. (Tr. I 53:4-7; 91:12-15; 92:14-18; 96:3-9; 107:16-108:2; 162:8-9.)

As a result, when questioned about membership and association with organizations generally, Mr. Abusamhadaneh narrowly construed the questions in light of his attorney’s advice and excluded all mention of religious organizations in his answers. After Mr. Abusamhadaneh had the opportunity to talk with his attorney during the break in the interview, however, he returned to clarify his answers about his relationships with religious organizations. Officer Lutostanski did not fully credit his testimony provided after the break, as her perception was shaded by the belief that Mr. Abusamhadaneh had already intentionally provided false testimony by attempting to hide his relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood. (Tr. IIIA 40:24-41:10; see also Tr. IIIA 25:6-26:5.) Thus, she concluded that Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s testimony about his relationship with the mosque, the Muslim American Society, and the Muslim Brotherhood after the break converted his earlier omission of that information into intentionally false testimony. Yet, in reality Mr. Abusamhadaneh was just correcting for his attorney’s mistaken advice and attempting to respond to the government’s mistake about the his relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood,

iii. Break in Testimony

Finally, before turning to the specifics of Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s testimony, the Court takes a moment to preliminarily address the break in his testimony during the N-400 interview. Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s testimony was provided in two parts: before and after a ten to fifteen minute break. During the break Mr. Abusamhadaneh and Mr. Nubani conferred outside the presence of Officer Lutostanski. As mentioned, Officer Lutostanski did not fully credit Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s testimony after the break. She disputes whether the additional testimony operated as “clarification,” arguing it was really “partial clarification or expansion on previous testimony” and “additional testimony.” (Tr. IIIA 27:14-29:17.) What is clear is that the testimony was given promptly and voluntarily. cSee Tr. IIIA 52:15-19.)

After a lengthy initial interview and extensive questioning about memberships, both Mr. Abusamhadaneh and Mr. Nubani had concerns about the interview by the time of the break. Mr. Nubani made a comment to Mr. Abusamhadaneh to the tune of — “you are coming through this scrutiny because of your [religious] association,” and it looks like “they have it out for you or there’s something that’s not right here.” (Tr. I 96:13-17; Tr. I 245:18-24.) Mr. Abusamhadaneh was understandably concerned and confused. The interview had lasted a long time, he was asked questions about his relationship with religious organizations which he understood from his attorney not to be included, and he had been informed that the government had information that he was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, which he was not. (Tr. I 90:18-91:6; 95:23-96:13.) Thus, Mr. Abusamhadaneh insisted that he was not leaving the building without clarifying his relationship with religious organizations. (Tr. I 96:4-9.)

Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s testimony after the break was made on his own volition. Mr. Abusamhadaneh credibly testified that during break he again told his attorney that he did not have an issue with discussing his relationship with religious organizations, and that he thought he should do so before he finished the interview. (Tr. I 95:23-96:9; 107:16-108:2.) Mr. Abusamhadaneh also credibly testified that he clarified his attorney’s advice on that point, and that Mr. Nubani apologized for the earlier misleading advice, recommending that Mr. Abusamhadaneh discuss his relationship with religious organizations. (Tr. I 96:12-17.) He also credibly testified that he sought his attorney’s advice on providing additional information on other topics. (Tr. 1123:13-14; 130:8-11; 246:8-9; Tr. II 5:9-17.)

Mr. Abusamhadaneh returned to continue his testimony in order to fully explain the nature of his relationship with religious organizations, to ensure that Officer Lutostanski understood that he was not linked to Mr. Alamoudi’s illegal activities during his time at the AMF, and to provide additional examples of things he had only recently thought out. The Court credits Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s explanation and finds that Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s testimony after the break was consistent with, and bolstered, his earlier testimony.

D. Memberships and Associations in Organizations

Turning to Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s testimony, Defendants argue Mr. Abusamhadaneh provided false testimony with an intent to obtain an immigration benefit on the following topics: membership and association with the Dar al-Hijra mosque, the Muslim American Society, and the Muslim Brotherhood; association with Mr. Alamoudi; and, stops by law enforcement. The Court will address each topic in turn,

i. Dar al-Hijra Mosque

The first issue is whether Mr. Abusamhadaneh provided false testimony regarding his relationship with the Dar al-Hijra mosque with the intent to obtain an immigration benefit. The Court will first review Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s N-400 Application, and then turn to his testimony during the N-400 interview.

1. Application

Question 8(a) of the N-400 Application asks, “Have you ever been a member of or associated with any organization, association, fund, foundation, party, club, society, or similar group in the United States or in any other place?” (Appl.) Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s Application checks the box for “no.” (Id.) Mr. Abusamhadaneh submits he did not list the Dar al-Hijra mosque (or any other mosque where he might have prayed), because he was unsure about the scope of the question, the meaning of the terms member and associated, and because he was advised by counsel not to include relationships with religious organizations. The Court finds Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s explanation reasonable and credible.

Question 8(a) does not specify religious organizations or the meaning of the terms member and associated. Mr. Abusamhadaneh credibly testified that he was unsure about the scope of the organizations he should include in response to this question, and unsure about the Application’s intended meaning of the terms member and associated. He credibly testified that in preparing to fill out the Application, he could not locate a definition of membership or association in the instruction book. (Tr. I 52:4-12.) As a result, Mr. Abusamhadaneh was unsure about whether to list the Dar al-Hijra mosque in response to Question 8(a). This confusion is reasonable because Mr. Abusamhadaneh is not formally a member of the Dar al-Hijra mosque, as he has not filled out the form required for membership, nor does he pay the requisite membership dues or vote. (Tr. I 53:25-55:24; Tr. II 94:10-95:1.) Nor does Mr. Abusamhadaneh formally associate with the mosque; he associates with it in the sense that he regularly visits the mosque to pray and attends some gatherings. (Tr. I 54:3-21.)

Recognizing that Question 8(a) was open-ended, Mr. Abusamhadaneh consulted his attorney about what he should include in his response. (Tr. I 52:9-25.) As previously discussed, Mr. Abusamhadaneh understood Mr. Nubani to advise him that he had a right not to list religious organizations and, therefore he is not supposed to list religious organizations in response. (Tr. I 53:1-23.) Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s reliance on this advice was reasonable. Mr. Nubani was a known attorney in the Muslim community and had a reputation as someone focused on immigration law. And, Mr. Abusamhadaneh understood him to be someone who was trustworthy. (Tr. I 49:15-21; Tr.' II 27:20-28:7.) Mr. Nubani reviewed every section of the Application with Mr. Abusamhadaneh. (Tr. I 226:1-7.) Not only does Question 8(a) fail to specify religious organizations, but there is also nothing else in the Application asking about religious affiliation that would suggest to Mr. Abusamhadaneh, contrary to Mr. Nubani’s advice, that the government had a right to inquire about it. Finally, the reasonableness of interpreting the question to exclude religious organizations is bolstered by Officer Lutostanski’s testimony that she would not generally expect an applicant to answer Question 8(a) listing his church or mosque membership. (Tr. II 192:8-19.)

Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s exclusion of the mosque was not made with the intent to obtain an immigration benefit. Mr. Abusamhadaneh credibly testified that his rationale for not listing it was twofold. First, he did not interpret the question to inquire about informal relationships with organizations and he believed his relationship with the mosque was informal. Second, his attorney advised him that he was not supposed to list religious organizations. In light of vague terms and his attorney’s advice, Mr. Abusamhadaneh reasonably narrowly construed the question to exclude religious organizations.

It is insufficient to infer intent to deceive from the fact that Mr. Abusamhadaneh had heard in the community that being Muslim or listing the Dar al-Hijra mosque on an N-400 Application could result in delays in the processing of the Application. (Tr. I 156:6-157:22; 159:2-6; 160:24-161:22.) Mr. Abusamhadaneh testified that it came to his mind as a concern that this was a possibility for his Application, but that he did not hold the belief that it would. (Tr. I 159:7-160:8; 162:2-4; 163:1-3.) The Court will not assume everything someone generally hears becomes that person’s own personal belief. It is also insufficient to infer intent to deceive from Mr. Nubani’s bias. There is evidence that Mr. Nubani is biased against the FBI based on a concern that Muslims are unfairly targeted in the United States. From his perspective, there is a “wink and a nod” between Muslims that they are subject to greater scrutiny in the United States because of their religious affiliation. (Tr. II 38:16-39:1.) There is no evidence, however, that Mr. Abusamhadaneh held this bias.

The Court assesses credibility based on the content of the witness’ testimony as well as their demeanor, cadence, tenor, tone, and inflection of voice. In addition, it looks to the consistency of the witness’ testimony with the rest of the evidence presented. The Court finds that Mr. Abusamhadaneh credibly testified that although it was something he discussed with his attorney in preparing the Application, he did not have an issue with listing his relationship with the mosque on his Application. (Tr. I 53:4-7; 162:8-9.) As discussed below, Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s testimony during the N-400 interview supports a finding that Mr. Abusamhadaneh was willing to disclose his relationship with religious organizations and was not withholding information with the intent to obtain an immigration benefit.

2. N-400 Interview Testimony

The notion that Mr. Abusamhadaneh was willing to disclose his relationship with religious organizations is supported by the degree to which he was forthcoming about his attendance at the mosque during the N-400 interview. At the outset of the interview, Mr. Abusamhadaneh was asked substantially the same question as Question 8(a) on the Application by Officer Lutostanski. It was the first time he was asked about membership or association dxxring the N-400 interview. Officer Lutostanski asked:

Have you ever been a member of or associated with any organization, association, fund, foundation, party, club, society or anything similar to those? You don’t belong to any organizations?

(Tr. 2009 24:21-25:8.) Consistent with his Application answer, Mr. Abusamhadaneh replied “no.” (Tr. 2009 25:4.) Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s negative response as it pertains to the mosque was reasonable for the same reasons why it was reasonable when Mr. Abusamhadaneh did not list the mosque in response to Question 8(a) on the Application. And the Court credits his explanation that his answers resulted from vague questions and his attorney’s advice — not from intent to deceive to obtain an immigration benefit. In fact, his response during the interview was made more reasonable by the way Officer Lutostanski combined her version of Question 8(a) with the second question of, “you don’t belong to any organizations?” (Tr. 2009 24:21-25:3.) It is sensible to interpret the first question in light of the second question, and here the second question implied that Office Lutostanski was asking about something akin to a formal relationship. The phrase as “belong to” suggests a meaning that is closer to “being a member of’ than to “informally associate with.” Mr. Abusamhadaneh had a reasonable impression that the question pertained to formal membership and association, neither of which he believed he had with the mosque. This impression was also understandable in light of the fact that Officer Lutostanski never defined the terms member or associated.

Next, Officer Lutostanski asked, “Are you member (sic) of a church or a mosque or anything like that?” Mr. Abusamhadaneh, not being a formal member, replied “no.” (Tr. 2009 25:5-8.) Mr. Nubani then asked, “Not a member of any of the mosques?” Mr. Abusamhadaneh stated, “No. I visit the mosque, but I am not a member.” (Tr. 2009 25:10-13.) Thus, before any other questions about membership or associations were asked, Mr. Abusamhadaneh was forthcoming with the fact that he visits a mosque. Far from deceitfully withholding the fact that he had a relationship with the mosque, Mr. Abusamhadaneh disclosed it up front at the beginning of the interview.

Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s response also demonstrates that he had a precise interpretation of the meaning of the word member. By disclosing this fact, Mr. Abusamhadaneh demonstrated that he was not attempting to deceive anyone in his responses to Officer Lutostanski’s questions. This response is consistent with Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s testimony throughout the interview regarding repeated questions about membership. And, it is particularly consistent with Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s response when Officer Lutostanski asked, “Can you honestly say that you are not a member of any organization?” Mr. Abusamhadaneh responded that he had already answered that question in the negative. He went on to explain:

“I go to the mosque. I participate in the community events. I’m a conservative person. I do pray. I do any activity that has to do with the family. I take my family. I take my kids to the school. They have picnics. They have things. So I go to all these kind of activities like anyone in any other community. But I’m not a member of any association or any club. I’m not even a member of the mosque that I go to.”

(Tr. 2009 66:15-67:9.) Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s testimony during the N-400 interview demonstrates he was both willing to discuss his relationship with the mosque and was careful to make a distinction about his use of the word member. In light of all the evidence presented, the Court finds this testimony forthright and truthful.

Officer Lutostanski also asked Mr. Abusamhadaneh - two general questions pertaining to association: (1) whether he was “associated with any organization,” and (2) whether the Jordanian student council (of which he was a formal member) was “the only thing that you can remember as far as your associations with any clubs?” (Tr. 2009 28:12-18.) Mr. Abusamhadaneh responded “no” and “yes,” respectively. The Court finds these responses as they pertain to the mosque reasonable for the same reasons they were reasonable when Mr. Abusamhadaneh answered “no” to Officer Lutostanski’s version of Question 8(a). That question included “associated” in the list of relationships she was inquiring about. , Mr. Abusamhadaneh credibly explained that he did not include MAS because of the vague question and his attorney’s advice that religious organizations were not responsive. The Court also finds that his answers were not made with any intent to deceive, as he had already disclosed the fact that he attended a mosque earlier in the interview. The fact that these responses were made after Mr. Abusamhadaneh had already revealed that he prays at a mosque, bolsters his credibility that he interpreted the word associate to imply a more formal relationship.

Additional testimony from the N-400 interview lends credibility to Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s assertion that he did not have any issue with disclosing his relationship with the mosque. When specifically asked, Mr. Abusamhadaneh was forthcoming about the fact that he is a Muslim who attends a mosque and community events hosted by it. For example, when asked how he found his job with the AMF, he discussed how he located the employment through the mosque. (Tr. 2009 50:9-51:18.) And, when asked later whether he attended any informal meetings or gatherings, Mr. Abusamhadaneh stated that he attended picnics and “any activities that they do on the outside.” (Tr. 2009 53:12-54:12.) (The “they” appears to be referencing the mosque.) Mr. Abusamhadaneh demonstrated that he was willing to discuss his relationship with the Dar al-Hijra mosque before the break in testimony and provided truthful answers to questions as he understood them.

After the break in testimony, Mr. Abusamhadaneh came back in to clarify that he visits and attends activities at the mosque, and so if that is the type of association Officer Lutostanski was interested in, then he did associate with the mosque. (Tr. I 100:2-18.) USCIS found this “explanation after the fact [ ] not believable.” (JE 11 at 6.) The Court disagrees. Not only is confusion about the term associate reasonable, but his explanation is entirely consistent with, and supported by, his actual testimony during the N-400 interview. A careful review of Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s testimony during the N-400 interview strongly bolsters his credibility when he claims that he was willing to discuss his relationship with the mosque, but was narrowly construing his answers in light of vague questions and his attorney’s advice about religious organizations.

The Court finds that the credibility of USCIS’s conclusions is undermined by inaccurate descriptions of Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s testimony and generalized findings about Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s truthfulness. To start, it is difficult to determine whether the USCIS decisions even conclude that Mr. Abusamhadaneh provided false testimony with respect to the mosque. The final 2011 Decision does not make any specific determinations, as it provides Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s testimony and only concludes “you minimized your associations with Mr. Alamoudi and various organizations in the opening portion of your initial interview” and that such testimony was “deceptive.” (JE 13 at 4-5.) The April 30, 2010 Decision states that his Application was denied “[b]ased on [Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s] overall conduct and testimony during the interview.” (JE 11 at 6.) And, although the 2010 Decision evaluates his testimony about the mosque, it does so inaccurately.

The 2010 Decision states that Mr. Abusamhadaneh was “asked numerous times in many different ways whether [he was] a member, or associated or affiliated, directly or indirectly, with any organizations, associations, or churches” and that “only later did you testify, after prodding from your own attorney, that you and your family attended a mosque of which you were not a member.” (JE 11 at 6.) Yet, Mr. Abusamhadaneh was up front with the fact that he visited a mosque, but was not a member, at the outset — in the exchange that occurred right after Officer Lutostanski asked her version of Question 8(a). To suggest that Mr. Abusamhadaneh withheld his relationship with the mosque through numerous pertinent questions is inaccurate. USCIS’s determination to group all of the questions throughout the interview without respect to timing undermines the credibility of its conclusions. It is also inaccurate to suggest that he was asked whether he was “indirectly” associated with any organizations. The only time Officer Lutostanski used the word indirect is when she asked Mr. Abusamhadaneh if he had “ever advocated either directly or indirectly the overthrow of any government by force.” (Tr. 2009 29:1-3.) Finally, the 2010 Decision also states that “supposedly” Mr. Abusamhadaneh does not consider himself a member of the mosque. The Court finds there is no basis for doubting the testimony that Mr. Abusamhadaneh is not a formal member of the mosque.

The Court notes that Officer Lutostanski did not testify that she thought he provided false testimony about the mosque. In fact, she confirmed that she would not expect Mr. Abusamhadaneh to answer Question 8(a) listing his mosque membership. And, to the extent that Officer Williams concluded that Mr. Abusamhadaneh lacked good moral character on the basis that he was not forthcoming with Officer Lutostanski about his relationship with the mosque, the Court gives very little weight to her determination. First, her conclusion was based on the N-400 interview testimony, which, as described above, the Court finds to be truthful. Second, she repeatedly mischaracterized the record of Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s testimony during the N-400 interview. For example, during the N-336 interview, Officer Williams stated that Mr. Abusamhadaneh testified during the N-400 interview that he sometimes attended the mosque, but “did not participate in any other meetings or gatherings.” (December 29, 2010 N-336 Hearing Tr. [JE 12] (“Tr. 2010”) 8:2-11.) Mr. Abusamhadaneh had to object to the misstatement and clarify his testimony from the N-400 interview for Officer Williams. Officer Williams’ mistakes about the N-400 interview record — the record that forms the basis for her conclusion that he provided false testimony to Officer Lutostanski — demonstrates that she did not undertake a thorough and careful review of it.

Finally, Defendants submit that

This case is not about whether or not Mr. Abusamhadaneh is a member of or associated with the Dar al-Hijra mosque. This case is about that Mr. Abusamhadaneh was not forthcoming when he was asked time and time and time and time again about his memberships and associations, his arrests and whether or not he had ever been subjected to investigations.

(March 15, 2012 Partial Tr. [Dkt. 48] (“Tr. IIIB”) 175:10-16.) Defendants are correct that this inquiry turns on a determination of Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s subjective intent, but they err in suggesting that whether Mr. Abusamhadaneh is a member of, or associated with, the mosque has no bearing on this case. An evaluation of Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s truthfulness rests very heavily on a determination of whether he was actually a member of, or associated with, a mosque. Simply, if he is not a member, he cannot be found to be lying or unforthcoming when he states he is not a member. And, if he is not reasonably associated with an organization, he cannot be found to be lying or unforthcoming when he states he is not associated with an organization.

ii. Muslim American Society

The second topic is whether Mr. Abusamhadaneh provided false testimony regarding his relationship with the Muslim American Society (MAS) with the intent to obtain an immigration benefit. Before reviewing Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s Application and testimony during the N-400 interview, the Court will first address Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s relationship with MAS.

Mr. Abusamhadaneh reasonably understood MAS to be a non-profit religious organization. (Tr. I 43:16-18.) Mr. Abusamhadaneh is not a formal member of MAS, not on the national level, not on the chapter level, and not as an affiliate member. (Tr. I 57:11-58:4; Tr. II 152:16-153:14.) He did not fill out a membership form, nor does he pay monthly dues, vote for leadership, enjoy privileges of membership in the organization, or participate in member outreach. (Id.) With respect to association, Mr. Abusamhadaneh and his family attended community events sponsored by MAS and his children attended a religious school run by MAS. (Tr. I 56:19-57:1.) And, MAS interacted with the AMF on some community projects. (Tr. I 43:16-19.) The Court finds that Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s determination that his interactions with MAS amounted to a less formal relationship with the organization is reasonable.

1. Application Questions

Regarding the Application, Mr. Abusamhadaneh credibly testified that as a result of his confusion about the scope of Question 8(a), confusion about the terms member and associated, and advice of counsel not to include religious organizations in response to the question (including MAS, which he discussed with Mr. Nubani), he did not include MAS on the Application. (Tr. I 49:1-13; 56:19-57:3; 58:7-17; 81:23-82:7.) The Court finds this explanation reasonable and credible. And, again, although Mr. Abusamhadaneh was aware that his relationship with MAS, like the mosque, could bring scrutiny on his Application, he credibly testified that he did not have any issue with listing his religious organizations on the Application. (Tr. I 53:1-9; 163:4-18; 165:22-168:4.) Mr. Abusamhadaneh understood that being part of the Muslim community could bring such scrutiny, and so his willingness to establish himself as a person who attends a mosque and its community events during the interview undermines the suggestion that he wanted to hide the fact he was Muslim. (Tr. I 49:1-13; 156:18-23.)

2. N-400 Interview Testimony

Regarding the N-400 interview, as a preliminary matter, Defendants place a great deal of weight on the argument that Mr. Abusamhadaneh was repeatedly asked questions about membership and association and thus, they assert, he repeatedly lied during his interview when he did not discuss MAS or other religious organizations. Defendants argue that Mr. Abusamhadaneh should have mentioned MAS in response to Officer Lutostanski’s membership and association questions. For example, Defendants argue that Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s most “egregious” conduct was failing to answer such questions when they were asked “14 times.” (Tr. IIIB 170:19-24.) Before addressing his testimony, the Court notes that it will not be deceived by that fact that Defendants’ counting overlooks the following points: (1) the terms member and associate can have distinct meanings and (2) certain questions are pertinent only for certain topics of Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s testimony. Defendants’ attempt to conflate Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s testimony casts doubt on their conclusion about his truthfulness. In order to properly inquire into Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s subjective intent and whether his answers to certain questions were reasonable, the Court must consider the specific questions, the specific topics, and the specific answers.

a) Questions about Membership

Turning to the questions during the N-400 interview, Mr. Abusamhadaneh is not, and has never been, a formal member of MAS. (Tr. I 57:11-12.) The Court finds this to be a credible explanation as to why he did not mention MAS in response to Officer Lutostanski’s version of Question 8(a) and her statement that, “The question states have you ever in the past or now been a member of any organizations including student organizations, including religious organizations,” and question of, “You’re not a member of any organizations in the United States or in any other country?” (Tr. 2009 26:21-27:3; 73:14-16.) And, it is a credible explanation for why when asked by Officer Lutostanski, “So your statement is that you’re not a member of any organization other than you were member of student counsel (sic) when you were in college in Jordan?,” Mr. Abusamhadaneh replied, “Not as a member at all.” (Tr. 2009 72:13-19.) When Mr. Abusamhadaneh was asked about membership per se, he answered specifically about membership. (Tr. I 209:16-22.) Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s credibility on this point is bolstered by the fact that he was clear early in the interview that he distinguished the term member from less formal interactions, like visiting a mosque. Defendants’ emphasis on the fact that Mr. Abusamhadaneh is educated and proficient in English (see Tr. I 169:17-170:16), comports with the fact that Mr. Abusamhadaneh repeatedly demonstrated himself to be someone who was precise in his use of words.

b) Questions about Association

There were also three questions that could potentially be construed as asking about Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s association with an entity like MAS. First, as discussed earlier, Officer Lutostanski’s version of Question 8(a) inquired into associations, although it was shaded by the notion of “belonging to” organizations. Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s negative answer to this question regarding MAS is reasonable for the same reasons it was reasonable when he answered no to Question 8(a) on the Application. As already discussed, the scope of Question 8(a), confusion about the term associated, and advice of counsel not to include religious organizations were all factors. The Court finds that this is a credible explanation for his answers.

Later in the interview, he was asked the other two questions: (1) whether he was “associated with any organization,” and (2) whether the Jordanian student council (to which he was a member) was “the only thing that you can remember as far as your associations with any clubs?” (Tr. 2009 28:12-21.) As already mentioned, Mr. Abusamhadaneh responded “no” and “yes” respectively. The Court finds Mr. Abusamhadaneh credible in his testimony that he did not have an issue with disclosing his relationship with MAS. Mr. Abusamhadaneh provided a credible and reasonable explanation that he answered no to these questions because of a lack of clarity about the term association and reliance on his attorney’s advice. (Tr. I 107:16-108:2.) The Court will now more closely review both of these explanations.

Turning first to the term associated or association, Defendants, relying on Supreme Court precedent, assert the question is not about meaningful association, rather it is about any association. (Tr. IIIB 172:20-25.) Yet, there is no evidence that Mr. Abusamhadaneh was made aware of the Supreme Court case Defendants cite. And Officer Lutostanski, unaware of any specific definition of the term associate, never defined it during the interview. (Tr. IIIA 15:5-14.) Instead, she testified that the meaning of it is the commonsense understanding, which is dependent on the applicant’s interpretation. (Id.)

Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s interpretation that the word associated implied a formal relationship was reasonable in light of Officer Lutostanski’s questions during the interview. Toward the beginning of the interview, when referencing Question 8(a), she stated, “The question says have you ever in the past or now been a member of any organization including student organizations, including religious organizations.” (Tr. 2009 26:21-27:3.) Thus, her summarized description of Question 8(a) explicitly stated that the question was interested in membership despite its inclusion of the word associated. And, the only time it can be said that Officer Lutostanski even implied that the term associate was related to informal interactions is much later in the interview when she said, “Did you ever attend any meetings of any organizations like informational meetings, gatherings, anything like that? You said you are not associated at all with any organizations.” (Tr. 2009 53:12-17.) But the other time her questioning implied a meaning was when she stated, “But before we do that I just want to ask you again about your association with any organizations in the United States. Can you honestly say that you are not a member of any organization?” (Tr. 2009 66:11-16.) Thus, the first time she potentially indicated that the word associate related to informal interactions and then the next time she suggested it was equivalent to membership.

Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s credibility is bolstered by his truthful answers when Officer Lutostanski inquired later about less formal relationships with organizations. She asked, “Did you ever attend any meetings of any organizations like informational meetings, gatherings, anything like that?” Mr. Abusamhadaneh stated that he attended picnics and activities that “they do on the outside.” (Tr. 2009 53:12-54:12.) “They” appears to reference the mosque, but this testimony is consistent with Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s explanation at trial that the mosque and the Muslim American Society do activities, such as a prayer time and picnics in the park. (Tr. I 43:20-25; 169:5-23.) And it is consistent with his testimony later in the N-400 interview when Officer Lutostanski asked, “Can you honestly say that you are not a member of any organization?” Mr. Abusamhadaneh responded that he had already answered that question in the negative. He went on to explain:

“I go to the mosque. I participate in the community events. I’m a conservative person. I do pray. I do any activity that has to do with the family. I take my family. I take my kids to the school. They have picnics. They have things. So I go to all these kind of activities like anyone in any other community. But I’m not a member of any association or any club. I’m not even a member of the mosque that I go to.”

(Tr. 2009 66:11-67:9.) Finally, with respect to the reference of “the school,” toward the end of the interview, but before the break, Mr. Abusamhadaneh stated that “MAS is governing the school.” (Tr. 2009 75:4-5.) Officer Lutostanski testified that she assumed that MAS was running the school that his daughter attended. (Tr. II 231:5-7.) The Court finds that Mr. Abusamhadaneh provided an accurate description about the less formal associations Mr. Abusamhadaneh had in the community during the N-400 interview. The fact he provided the information before the break, although not in direct response to general questions about associations, bolsters Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s credibility that he was willing to disclose information about his relationship with MAS.

It is notable that at no point did Officer Lutostanski follow-up about informal associations, ask him about the community activities, or ask him about his relationship with MAS. Had she attempted to obtain more detail from Mr. Abusamhadaneh, it is likely he would have overcome his concern about the advice of his attorney on religious organizations and more fully detail his activities before the break in testimony. The absence of detailed answers in the absence of detailed questions cannot be held against Mr. Abusamhadaneh.

Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s testimony to Officer Lutostanski prior to the break is consistent with his statements when he returned from break, when he explained that his family participates in community services offered by MAS and that, if this the “kind of religious association” that Officer Lutostanski was talking about, then he does in that sense “associate” with MAS. (Tr. I 100:11-18.) And, Mr. Nubani explained that if what she meant by “association” was the notion that he has had contact with people from MAS, then he does in that sense “associate.” (Tr. II 14:5-8.) The Court finds Mr. Abusamhadaneh was accurate when he stated that he was not changing his testimony after the break, rather he was providing additional information as a clarification to his earlier testimony. (Tr. 1 107:8-22.)

c) Advice of Counsel

Turning to the issue of advice of counsel, Mr. Abusamhadaneh recognized that he had an informal relationship with MAS, and recognized that Officer Lutostanski was asking questions about religious organizations. This led to understandable confusion on Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s behalf, in light of Mr. Nubani’s advice that he was not supposed to include religious organizations in his responses. (Tr. I 90:14-92:18.) In response to a question from Mr. Nubani as to whether Question 8(a) included churches and mosques, Officer Lutostanski stated that it included “pretty much everything including PTA and all organizations.” (Tr. 2009 25:15-19.) Defendants argue that this should have dispelled any doubt that Mr. Abusamhadaneh should rely on the advice of counsel regarding disclosure of religious organizations. (Tr. IIIB 171:12-17.) The Court finds it reasonable, however, that this exchange only added to Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s confusion about the role of his attorney and answers about religious organizations.

First, Mr. Abusamhadaneh points out that he did not understand Mr. Nubani to agree with Officer Lutostanski’s interpretation of the question. (Tr. I 192:6-8.) Second, contrary to Defendants’ assertion, Officer Lutostanski’s statement at the beginning of the interview did not address Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s predicament. At the start of the interview, Mr. Abusamhadaneh had been told that his attorney could “advise [him] on points of law, but he cannot respond to questions that are directed at you.” (Tr. 2009 4:11-13.) Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s confusion as to whether he could, or should, ask his attorney in the presence of the interviewer about how he should answer a question, given his attorneys earlier advice, is reasonable. (Tr. I 91:4-92:18; 169:3-12.) Defendants argue that Mr. Abusamhadaneh should have asked Officer Lutostanski for clarification about the meaning of the word associate. But Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s confusion was not just about the question, it was also about how to handle his attorney’s advice. Moreover, it is reasonable that Mr. Abusamhadaneh was concerned about interrupting the proceedings given the statement at the beginning that a negative inference might be drawn from stopping the interview. (Tr. I 91:2— 4.) Mr. Abusamhadaneh credibly testified that despite the exchange between Mr. Nubani and Officer Lutostanski, he still believed that she should not include religious organizations in response to general questions. (Tr. I 86:18-87:22.)

Finally, neither USCIS decision makes any specific conclusion regarding the truthfulness of Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s testimony about MAS. Officer Williams’ did not provide any specific testimony on this point and there are substantial concerns about the credibility of Officer Lutostanski’s conclusions about MAS. First, as discussed above, Officer Lutostanski did not have all of the relevant information about the FBI report and the relationship between MAS and the Muslim Brotherhood during the N-400 interview. Second, her recollection of her questioning during that interview is less than precise in areas where precision makes a great deal of a difference. For example, during the N-400 interview she asked Mr. Abusamhadaneh, “can you honestly say that you are not a member of any organization.” (Tr. 2009 66:15-16.) But at trial she stated that she asked him, “can you honestly tell me that you are not a member of or associated with any organization.” (Tr. II 214:10-11.) And she testified at trial that “[h]e said that he already answered that question, and that ... he was not a member of or associated with any organization” (Tr. II 214:21-23), when in reality he never said anything about being associated with organizations. Mr. Abusamhadaneh had explained that although he participates in community activities, he was “not a member of any association or any club.” (Tr. 2009 66:17-67:9.) It appears Officer Lutostanski’s recollection of the interview is shaded by an impression that she was asking him about association when she was not.

The Court finds that Mr. Abusamhadaneh credibly testified that he had no issue with disclosing his relationship with MAS at the outset, but decided not to during the initial part of the interview as a result of his interpretation of the term associated and advice from his attorney. The Court credits Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s explanation and finds his answers were not made with intent to deceive in order to obtain an immigration benefit. Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s decision to narrowly construe answers to vague questions in order to comport with his attorney’s advice was reasonable.

iii. Muslim Brotherhood

The next issue is whether Mr. Abusamhadaneh provided false testimony with an intent to obtain an immigration benefit on the topic of his relationship (or lack thereof) with the Muslim Brotherhood.

1. Relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood

Before turning to Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s testimony, the Court will first address his relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood. Mr. Abusamhadaneh credibly testified that he is not, and never has been, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. (Tr. I 92:19-93:1.) Not here and not in Jordan. (Id.) Nor has he ever been associated with the Muslim Brotherhood in any formal way. Mr. Abusamhadaneh credibly testified that when he lived in Jordan he attended a tutoring class and lectures sponsored by the' Muslim Brotherhood by virtue of the fact that in Jordan it is an active political party. (Tr. I 93:4-25.) And, he credibly testified that here in the United States he possibly comes in contact with people who, unbeknownst to him, consider themselves to be members of the Muslim Brotherhood by virtue of the fact that he lives in a Muslim community. Certainly not all American Muslims who participate in their community and who once attended a few lectures in Jordan can be said to be or have been “associated” with the Muslim Brotherhood. Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s near complete lack of membership in, and association with, the organization is a credible explanation for why he did not mention it in the range of membership and association questions he was asked.

Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s credibility is supported by the fact that he reasonably considers the Muslim Brotherhood and the MAS to be two different organizations (Tr. I 103:25-104:3), and there is no evidence establishing that Mr. Abusamhadaneh should have thought his attendance at the Dar al-Hijra mosque made him a member of, or associated with, the Muslim Brotherhood. Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s credibility is also bolstered by the fact that he did not mention it in discussions with Mr. Nubani when preparing to fill out the Application.

Defendants’ emphasis on the notion that Mr. Abusamhadaneh subsequently used the word associated to describe his relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood rings hollow. The record demonstrates that Mr. Abusamhadaneh used the word associated only after explaining the limited nature of his relationship with the organization, and only after adopting Defendants’ assertion that the term should be applied to his relationship. The relevant inquiry is whether Mr. Abusamhadaneh reasonably believed that he was not associated with the organization when he answered Officer Lutostanski’s questions. When Mr. Abusamhadaneh returned from the break during the N^fOO interview he explained his confusion about the reach of the term associate to Officer Lutostanski and stated that he was not a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. And during the interview with Officer Williams, he said he was associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, but only insofar as he explained his limited interactions with the organization to her earlier. (Tr. 2010 64:20-65:3.)

2. FBI Report

The underlying issue that eventually led to Officer Lutostanski’s confusion is that different people have different understandings of the relationship between MAS and the Muslim Brotherhood. (See Tr. II 107:20-108:3.) This was made evident by testimony throughout the immigration proceedings and during the trial. Mr. Abusamhadaneh reasonably considers the Muslim Brotherhood and MAS to be two different organizations. (Tr. I 103:25-104:3.) This is supported by the fact that MAS does not hold itself out as the Muslim Brotherhood and testimony that the Muslim Brotherhood simply no longer exists in the United States. (Tr. II 107:20.) But because of how the Muslim Brotherhood evolved in the United States and because it shares the same theology as MAS, some consider MAS to effectively-be the United States Muslim Brotherhood.

The particular issue in this case is that Mr. Alamoudi has at times understood MAS to be equivalent to what he considers to be the United States Muslim Brotherhood and has discussed them interchangeably. (Tr. II 135:9-15; 143:5-16.) The FBI report upon which Officer Lutostanski relied states that a source (i.e., Mr. Alamoudi) said that Mr. Abusamhadaneh told him “he was a member of the [Muslim Brotherhood] since his days in the student movement in Jordan, which is sponsored by the [Muslim Brotherhood] in Jordan.” (Defs.’ Ex. 1.) Yet, Mr. Alamoudi’s testimony at trial effectively impeached that portion of the report. He explained that he gave more than 50 interviews, and has been subsequently skeptical of the FBI 302 reports because some of them have contained inaccuracies. (Tr. II 130:15-16; 132:5-7.) He testified that for the particular report in question, he does not believe that Mr. Abusamhadaneh would have told him that he was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. (Tr. II 132:13-22.) Instead, the report reflects the facts that Mr. Alamoudi thought Mr. Abusamhadaneh was a member of MAS, and that Mr. Alamoudi referred to MAS and the Muslim Brotherhood interchangeably. (Tr. II 134:23-135:15.)

Officer Lutostanski was unaware that Mr. Alamoudi was the confidential source in the FBI report and that there were issues as to the accuracy of the information in the report. She simply thought Mr. Abusamhadaneh was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and that he was lying by not admitting he was a member. (Tr. II 184:16-22.) From her perspective, she was repeatedly trying to give Mr. Abusamhadaneh an opportunity to mention his membership in the Muslim Brotherhood. (Tr. II 192:11-19; 205:3-7; 216:8-19; 217:15-17; 218:7-10.) And that is why she persisted in her questions, particularly about membership. (Tr. IIIA 32:22-33:12.) The 2010 Decision states that “even after [questions by Officer Lutostanski about membership and associations] and after being confronted about your membership in the Muslim Brotherhood, you still denied membership or association with the Muslim Brotherhood.” (JE 11 at 6.) As previously stated, Officer Lutostanski concedes she does not know what she would have concluded regarding Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s explanations if she was aware that the FBI report was unreliable and inaccurate. (Tr. IIIA 40:3-9.) Now with the benefit of all the evidence, the Court concludes that Mr. Abusamhadaneh was entirely truthful in his testimony regarding the Muslim Brotherhood.

3. N-400 Interview Testimony

Mr. Abusamhadaneh’s testimony during the N-400 interview is consistent with his explanation that