Avila v. Barr
| Decision Date | 27 May 2020 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-02393-RM-NRN |
| Parties | ABEL RAMOS AVILA, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM BARR, the Attorney General of the United States; CHAD WOLF, the Acting Secretary of United States Department of Homeland Security; and DAVID DOUGLAS, the District Director of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services; Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Colorado |
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the November 22, 2019 Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter ("Recommendation") (ECF No. 46), which recommends granting Defendants William Barr, Chad Wolf, and David Douglas's ("Government") Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Abel Ramos Avila's Amended Complaint ("Motion") (ECF No. 21). Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Recommendation ("Objection") (ECF No. 49). The Government filed a Response to Mr. Ramos's Objection (ECF No. 50), and Mr. Ramos replied ("Reply") (ECF No. 51). The Recommendation and Objection are now ripe for determination.
The Court has reviewed the Background set forth in the Recommendation and finds it accurately reflects the record. Neither party objects to the Background; therefore, the Court incorporates the same, and provides a summary.
Mr. Ramos is a Mexican citizen who applied for naturalization as a United States citizen. (ECF No. 15-1, at 4.) His application ("INS Form N-400") was denied by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") on June 26, 2017 on the ground that, despite obtaining Lawful Permanent Resident ("LPR") status in 1995, Mr. Ramos was not actually lawfully admitted for permanent residence, because had fraudulently obtained LPR status. (ECF Nos. 1, ¶ 12(e); 46, at 2.) The USCIS based its decision on the fact that Mr. Ramos failed to disclose he was deported in 1984 under a false name and that he had then been arrested in 1986 while in the United States. (Id.) It is unclear whether Mr. Ramos disclosed the deportation and subsequent arrest at the time he applied for LPR status, and the Government can't prove he did not.2 (Id.)
In his action before this Court, Mr. Ramos petitions for de novo judicial review of his naturalization application under 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c). Upon the Government's Motion, the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of Mr. Ramos's Amended Complaint because his "1984 deportation rendered him inadmissible at the time of his adjustment of status" and the Government had not waived the inadmissibility issue nor did res judicata or collateral estoppel "prevent the Government from arguing Mr. Ramos was not properly admitted as a lawful permanent resident." (ECF No. 46, at 6.)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3) requires the district court judge to "determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's [recommendation] that has been properly objected to." In conducting its review, "[t]he district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). An objection is proper if it is filed within fourteen days of the magistrate judge's recommendations and specific enough to enable the "district judge to focus attention on those issues—factual and legal—that are at the heart of the parties' dispute." U.S. v. 2121 East 30th Street, 73 F.3d 1057, 1059 (10th Cir. 1996) (quoting Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147 (1985)).
In evaluating a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a court must accept as true all well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint, view those allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Brokers' Choice of Am., Inc. v. NBC Universal, Inc., 757 F.3d 1125, 1135-36 (10th Cir. 2014); Mink v. Knox, 613 F.3d 995, 1000 (10th Cir. 2010). Conclusory allegations are insufficient. See Cory v. Allstate Ins., 583 F.3d 1240, 1244 (10th Cir. 2009). Instead, in the complaint, the plaintiff must allege a plausible entitlement to relief. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007). A complaint warrants dismissal if it fails "in toto to render plaintiffs' entitlement to relief plausible." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 569 n.14 (italics in original). "In determining the plausibility of a claim, we look to the elements of the particular cause of action, keeping in mind that the Rule 12(b)(6) standard does not require a plaintiff to set forth a prima facie case for each element."Safe Streets Alliance v. Hickenlooper, 859 F.3d 865, 878 (10th Cir. 2017) (citation, internal quotation marks, and alteration omitted).
A. Mr. Ramos's Objection
Mr. Ramos objects to the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation on much the same grounds he opposed the Government's Motion. Mr. Ramos argues the Magistrate Judge improperly applied the de novo standard of review under 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c). He also argues for the first time in thirty-five years - and in response to the Government's Motion - that his 1984 deportation cannot be used as a basis to deny his naturalization application because he was deprived of his due process rights. Mr. Ramos concludes by arguing the Government either waived its ability to assert Mr. Ramos fraudulently acquired LPR status or is precluded by res judicata from arguing he was not properly admitted as a lawful permanent resident.
Though it is unclear, Mr. Ramos argues one of two positions with the following:
"The Magistrate [Judge] ignore[d] the fundamental nature of this Court's obligation to review 'de novo' the denial of Plaintiff's application for citizenship, to make its own findings of fact and conclusions of law, and to conduct a hearing 'de novo' on Judicial Review of the application, which Plaintiff requests." (ECF No. 3.)
An applicant seeking review of the denial of his naturalization application may seek judicial review of the denial under a de novo standard. 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c). However, Mr. Ramos's argument is unclear as to how the Magistrate Judge failed to conduct the appropriate review. Either Mr. Ramos argues he may proceed directly to discovery and is entitled to an evidentiary hearing regardless of whether he adequately states a plausible claim for relief in his Amended Complaint or he believes that upon denial of an application for naturalization, it is sufficient to sustain his pleading burden simply to note that his application was erroneously denied.
The former position is unsupported by law and is rejected as courts routinely entertain Rule 12(b)(6) motions after a petitioner challenges the denial of a naturalization petition by the USCIS. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(a)(3) (); Thu Ngoc Luong v. Barrows, 17-cv-00756-KMT, 2018 WL 1242007, at *1-4 (D. Colo. Mar. 9, 2018) (); Borski v. Lynch, No. 16-cv-00924-RM, 2017 WL1153997, (D. Colo. Mar. 27, 2017) (); Saliba v. Att'y Gen. of U.S., 828 F.3d 182 (3d Cir. 2016) (); Bidzimou v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., No.13-1127-SAC, 2013 WL 4094440, at *2 (D. Kan. Aug. 13, 2013) ( )
But the latter appears more conducive with Mr. Ramos's briefing when taken in light of the statement in his Reply where he contends simply "that the Plaintiff has stated a plausible claim for relief because he is statutorily eligible to naturalize as a United States citizen." (ECF No. 52, at 2-3.) However, it is clear that such a formulaic recitation alone would not satisfy his burden under Rule 12(b)(6). See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. Instead, Mr. Ramos argues some of the factual allegations in the Amended Complaint show he was granted LPR status, this status was never revoked, and the Government knew of reasons to rescind his LPR status - the samereasons on which they relied to deny his naturalization petition - but did not, and as a result he has adequately pled a plausible claim for relief.
As correctly stated by the Magistrate Judge, the naturalization process is governed by the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA") and its corresponding regulations. Under the relevant provisions of the INA, no person shall be naturalized unless they meet the following criteria: (1) the applicant must have been a lawful permanent resident residing within the United States for the five years immediately preceding his application; (2) the applicant must have resided continuously within the United States from the date of the application up to the time of admission to citizenship; and (3) during all the relevant time periods, the applicant must be a person of good moral character. 8 U.S.C. § 1427(a). Courts must require strict compliance with the statutory requirements. See Fedorenko v. U.S., 449 U.S. 490, 506 (1981). It is the applicant's burden of showing his eligibility and compliance with the naturalization requirements, and any doubts about eligibility should be resolved in favor of the Government. Berenyi v. Dist. Dir., I.N.S., 385 U.S. 630, 637 (1967); see also 8 C.F.R. § 316.2(b).
Mr. Ramos's application was denied because he failed to meet the...
To continue reading
Request your trial