Kungys v. United States

6 Citing briefs

  1. Bolero, Inc. et al v. Johnson et al

    Cross MOTION for summary judgment

    Filed June 14, 2017

    Thus these five statements were willful misrepresentations which had the natural tendency to influence the decisions of immigration officials as they tended to shut off a line of inquiry relevant to his eligibility and “which might well” have resulted in his exclusion. Kungys v. U.S., 485 U.S. 759, 772 (1988); see Azim, 314 Fed. Appx. at 196; Matter of Kai Hing Hui, 15 I. & N. Dec. 288, 289 (BIA 1975)(emphasis added). Additionally, as to the misrepresentations on the two DS-156s – CAR at 461- 462, 457-458, 802-803- two in-person consular interviews- CAR at 463, 459) and the Form I-485 (CAR at 164), Plaintiffs claim that whatever answer Osambela put in the marriage box or told the consular officer about his marriage would have resulted in “visitor visa granted” (Dkt.

  2. United States of America v. United Health Group, Inc. et al

    REPLY in Support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss United States First Amended Complaint-In-Partial-Intervention; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof 182

    Filed January 16, 2018

    The Court thus reasoned that “the difficulty of establishing ‘but for’ causality, by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence many years after the fact, is so great that we cannot conceive that Congress intended such a burden to be met before a material misrepresentation could be sanctioned.” 485 U.S. at 776-77. No comparably heightened evidentiary standard applies in a False Claims Act case, and thus the traditional “more likely than not” or “but for” tests of materiality are appropriate.

  3. United States of America v. United Health Group, Inc. et al

    OPPOSITION to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss United States First Amended Complaint-In-Partial-Intervention; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof 182

    Filed January 8, 2018

    Id. at 2002 (citing Kungys, 485 U.S. at 771 (stating that “[i]t has never been the test of materiality that the misrepresentation or concealment would more likely than not have produced an erroneous decision”) (emphasis in the original)). See also id.

  4. Bolero, Inc. et al v. Johnson et al

    MOTION for summary judgment

    Filed April 30, 2017

    The U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Kungys v. U.S., 485 U.S. 759 (1988), set forth a four- part analysis to determine whether a misrepresentation is material: (i) the applicant must have misrepresented or concealed a fact; (ii) the misrepresentation or concealment must have been Case 8:15-cv-01900-CEH-MAP Document 30 Filed 04/30/17 Page 5 of 14 PageID 255 - 6 - willful; (3) the facts must have been material; and (4) the applicant must have procured a ben- efit. 485 U.S. at 767. USCIS policies instruct adjudicating officers to follow the test for mate- riality provided by the U.S. Supreme Court in Kungys.

  5. USA v. Binday et al

    MEMORANDUM in Support

    Filed October 1, 2012

    For a misstatement to be material, it “must have ‘a natural tendency to influence, or [is] capable of influencing, the decision of the decisionmaking body to which it was addressed.’” United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 509 (1995) (quoting Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759, 770 (1988)). Thus, materiality must be assessed exclusively from the point of view of the person or entity to whom the false statement is directed, without regard to the defendant’s intent.

  6. Klein v. Solomon & Solomon PC et al

    Memorandum in Support re MOTION for Reconsideration re Order on Motion to Dismiss

    Filed November 7, 2011

    n4 The Wells Court states: We accordingly consider whether materiality of falsehood is an element under § 1014, understanding the term in question to mean "having a natural tendency to influence, or [being] capable of influencing, the decision of the decisionmaking body to which it was addressed," Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759, 770, 99 L. Ed. 2d 839, 108 S. Ct. 1537 (1988) (internal quotation marks [*490] omitted); see also United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. at 509.7 We begin with the text.