The plaintiff relies on Ajuz v. Mukasey for the proposition that he does not lack good moral character simply because he misunderstood USCIS's questions and answered them incorrectly under oath. See No. 07–MC–0185, 2009 WL 902369, at *4 (E.D.Pa. Apr. 2, 2009) ("[F]alse testimony due to a misunderstanding, a misinterpretation, or an innocent mistake is insufficient to deny citizenship for lack of good moral character." (quoting Saad v. Barrows, No. CIV.A. 3:03–CV–1342G, 2004 WL 1359165, at *6 (N.D.Tex. June 16, 2004) )).
Id. at 780 (quotations omitted). See Ajuz v. Mukasey, No. 07-MC-0185, 2009 WL 902369, at *5 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 2, 2009) (petitioner found of good moral character where he innocently but falsely answered "no" when asked at the naturalization interview if he had ever been married anywhere at anytime, believing that his marriage a few months earlier had nothing to do with his immigration paperwork); Zheng v. Chertoff, No. 08-0547, 2008 WL 4899342, at *3-4 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 12, 2008) (applicant found of good moral character where he admitted in applying for residency that he had entered the United States using an altered passport but when he applied for citizenship, he answered "no" to questions regarding whether he had ever lied to gain entry to the United States). In this case, petitioner has demonstrated that during the statutorily prescribed period, she has been and continues to be a person of good moral character.
The District Courts of the Third Circuit have not departed from this position. See Ajuz v. Mukasey, 2009 WL 902369, at *3 (E.D. Pa. April 2, 2009) (quoting Aparicio approvingly). See Nagahi v. INS, 219 F.3d 1166, 1169 (10th Cir. 2000) (noting that "[t]his grant of authority is unusual in its scope — rarely does a district court review an agency decision de novo and make its own findings of fact"); Chan v. Gantner, 464 F.3d 289, 291 (2d Cir. 2006) (same).