CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
KAMAL H. TURFAH,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,
Respondents-Appellees.
   No. 16-1282
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 2:15-cv-10371—Marianne O. Battani, District Judge.
Argued: December 6, 2016
Decided and Filed: January 6, 2017
Before: BOGGS, GILMAN, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. Kamal Turfah is a citizen of Lebanon. He has been a lawful permanent resident (LPR) of the United States since he entered the country in September 1995. In November 2012, Turfah applied to become a naturalized U.S. citizen. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) denied Turfah’s application, finding that (1) he was ineligible for naturalization, and (2) he lacked good moral character. Only the former finding is before us on appeal because USCIS dismissed the latter.

Turfah filed a timely petition for de novo review of USCIS’s decision in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment for USCIS, holding that Turfah was ineligible for naturalization. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
MATTHEW GILLIS (16-1245); FRED WALRAVEN (16- 1249),
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
JOHN MILLER; in his official and individual capacities; BAY COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT,
Defendants-Appellees.
   Nos. 16-1245/1249
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Bay City.
No. 1:14-cv-12518—Thomas L. Ludington, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: January 6, 2017
Before: MOORE and CLAY, Circuit Judges; HOOD, District Judge.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

CLAY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs Matthew Gillis and Fred Walraven, former correctional officers at the Bay County Jail in Bay City, Michigan, appeal from the district court’s adverse grant of summary judgment on their First Amendment retaliation claims against Defendants, the Bay County Sheriff and Sheriff’s Department. Plaintiffs allege that they were terminated from their positions at the jail in retaliation for posting a memorandum notifying their fellow correctional officers of their right to union representation during an investigation into prescription drug trafficking at the jail. The district court concluded that Plaintiffs’ memorandum was not protected speech because it did not touch on matters of public concern, and that even if it had, Plaintiffs’ speech interests were outweighed by Defendants’ interest in obtaining compliance from the correctional officers with their investigation. We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.