Donnelly v. Controlled Application Review & Resolution Program Unit

• Decision Date: 14 June 2022
• Docket Number: 20-4243,August Term 2021
• Citation: 37 F.4th 44
• Parties: Patrick J. DONNELLY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. CONTROLLED APPLICATION REVIEW AND RESOLUTION PROGRAM UNIT, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Thomas Cioppa, District Director of the New York Field Office of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Ur M. Jaddou, Director of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Alejandro Mayorkas, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Merrick B. Garland, United States Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

37 F.4th 44

Patrick J. DONNELLY, Petitioner-Appellant,

v.CONTROLLED APPLICATION REVIEW AND RESOLUTION PROGRAM UNIT, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Thomas Cioppa, District Director of the New York Field Office of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Ur M. Jaddou, Director of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Alejandro Mayorkas, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Merrick B. Garland, United States Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees.^*

No. 20-4243

August Term 2021

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued: February 28, 2022

Decided: June 14, 2022

Eamonn Dornan, Dornan & Associates PLLC, Yonkers, NY (Gerard G. McCabe, FG McCabe & Associates, New York, NY, on the brief), for Petitioner-Appellant.

Jessica F. Rosenbaum, Assistant United States Attorney (Benjamin H. Torrance, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), for Audrey Strauss, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY, for Respondents-Appellees.

Before: Walker, Menashi, and Lee, Circuit Judges.

Menashi, Circuit Judge:

In 2009, Petitioner-Appellant Patrick J. Donnelly filed an application for naturalization with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS"), one of the respondents-appellees in this case. Nine years later, after a convoluted series of proceedings, his application was denied when USCIS determined that he was ineligible for naturalization. Donnelly filed an administrative appeal, and in response the agency sent him a notice to appear at a hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(a). After Donnelly failed to appear, the agency affirmed the denial of his application. Donnelly brought this action seeking review in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging, among other things, that the agency failed to follow its own procedures in denying his application. The district court held that, by not attending the hearing, Donnelly failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c). Donnelly v. CARRP , 503 F. Supp. 3d 100, 105 (S.D.N.Y. 2020). Because the district court held the exhaustion requirement to be jurisdictional, the district court dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Id. at 105-06.

We hold that the district court erred when it treated 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) as a jurisdictional requirement. In keeping with the Supreme Court's attempts "to bring some discipline to the use of the term ‘jurisdiction,’ " Sebelius v. Auburn Reg'l Med. Ctr. , 568 U.S. 145, 153, 133 S.Ct. 817, 184 L.Ed.2d 627 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted), we conclude that § 1421(c) lacks the clear statement we require before labeling a limitation as "jurisdictional." At the same time, we hold that Donnelly's claim may not proceed. "[A] rule may be mandatory without being jurisdictional," Fort Bend County v. Davis , ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 1843, 1852, 204 L.Ed.2d 116 (2019), and § 1421(c) is such a rule. Because the government properly raised Donnelly's failure to attend the hearing as a failure to exhaust, § 1421(c) ’s exhaustion requirement must be enforced. Donnelly's noncompliance with the exhaustion requirement means that he failed to state a claim, and we affirm the judgment of the district court on that ground.

BACKGROUND

I

The Constitution provides that "Congress shall have Power ... [t]o establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8. In the Immigration and Nationality Act, Congress set out the eligibility requirements for aliens seeking naturalization. Those requirements include, among other things, that the alien "has been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence in accordance with all applicable provisions of this chapter," 8 U.S.C. § 1429, that the alien "has resided continuously, after being lawfully admitted for permanent residence, within the United States for at least five years," id. § 1427(a), and that the alien "during all the periods referred to in [ 8 U.S.C. § 1427(a) ] has been and still is a person of good moral character," id.

Additionally, since 2002, Congress has provided that an alien must seek naturalization by filing an application with USCIS. Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135. After filing an application, the applicant is subject to a background investigation, 8 U.S.C. § 1446(a), and is examined under oath or affirmation by a USCIS officer, 8 C.F.R. § 335.2. Following the examination, the officer either grants or denies the application. Id. § 316.14(b).

Section 1447 of Title 8 provides for the administrative appeal of an initial denial of a naturalization application. Following such a denial, an applicant "may request a hearing before an immigration officer." 8 U.S.C. § 1447(a). According to regulations, such a request must be filed with USCIS "within thirty days after the applicant receives the notice of denial," and "[u]pon receipt of a timely request for a hearing, USCIS will schedule a review hearing, within a reasonable period of time not to exceed 180 days from the date upon which the appeal is filed." 8 C.F.R. § 336.2(a), (b). At that hearing, "[t]he reviewing officer [has] the authority and discretion to review the application for naturalization, to examine the applicant, and either to affirm the findings and determination of the original examining officer or to re-determine the original decision in whole or in part." Id. § 336.2(b). The officer may "receive new evidence or take ... additional testimony," and to do so the officer "may, in his or her discretion, conduct a full de novo hearing or may utilize a less formal review procedure." Id.

In the Immigration Act of 1990, Congress provided that "[t]he sole authority to naturalize persons as citizens of the United States is conferred upon the Attorney General." Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-649, 104 Stat. 4978 (codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1421(a) ).¹ Even so, there are two statutory avenues for an applicant to seek naturalization from a federal court. First, under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), if an initial decision is not rendered within 120 days of the examination of the applicant, he "may apply to the United States district court for the district in which the applicant resides for a hearing on the matter." The same subsection provides that "[s]uch court has jurisdiction over the matter and may either determine the matter or remand the matter ... to [USCIS]." 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b).

Second, Congress has provided an avenue for seeking naturalization in federal court after an unsuccessful administrative appeal of an initial denial. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c),

[a] person whose application for naturalization under this subchapter is denied, after a hearing before an immigration officer under [ 8 U.S.C. § 1447(a) ], may seek review of such denial before the United States district court for the district in which such person resides in accordance with chapter 7 of title 5.

When its conditions are met, § 1421(c) "offers an expansive form of judicial review." Moya v. DHS , 975 F.3d 120, 127 (2d Cir. 2020). According to its terms, "[s]uch review shall be de novo, and the court shall make its own findings of fact and conclusions of law and shall, at the request of the petitioner, conduct a hearing de novo on the application." 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) ; see also Chan v. Gantner , 464 F.3d 289, 291 (2d Cir. 2006) (noting that § 1421(c) ’s "grant of authority is unusual in its scope") (quoting Nagahi v. INS , 219 F.3d 1166, 1169 (10th Cir. 2000) ).

II

Patrick J. Donnelly, a citizen of Ireland, entered the United States as a visitor in 1987. Two years later, he married an American citizen. Together, they filed a Form I-130 (Petition for Alien Relative) and a Form I-485 (Application for Permanent Residence), seeking legal permanent resident status for Donnelly.

One question on the Form I-485 asked: "Have you ever, in or outside the United States[,] been arrested, cited, charged, indicted, convicted, fined, or imprisoned for breaking or violating any law or ordinance, including traffic regulations?" App'x 45. Donnelly answered yes and indicated that he had been arrested in New York in 1987 for assault in the third degree, for which the record was sealed and the charge dismissed. He provided no details about any other incident. Both the Form I-130 and Form I-485 were approved, and Donnelly obtained conditional permanent resident status on October 1, 1990. When the conditions were removed on October 7, 1992, he became a legal permanent resident.

In 2001, Donnelly sought naturalization for the first time. Similar to Form I-485, Form N-400 (Application for Naturalization) requires disclosure of any criminal charges or arrests. On this form, Donnelly added two incidents that occurred since his I-485 application: his arrests for DWI offenses in 1993 and 2001. He pleaded guilty to the 1993 offense, and he was found guilty of the 2001 offense. Donnelly's application for naturalization was denied in 2002 for failure to submit court-certified dispositions for those offenses.

Seven years later, Donnelly reapplied for naturalization. On his newest Form N-400, he again acknowledged his three arrests, and this time he provided court-certified dispositions. On June 17, 2014, he was interviewed by a USCIS officer. At the interview, Donnelly denied having ever been arrested in any other country. When the officer asked if there was "anything else that [he] would like to add," Donnelly replied that he "was questioned in Ireland for 3 days" by "[t]he [p]olice." Id. at 104. The officer then asked Donnelly why the police kept him for three days. Donnelly responded that "[i]t was common." Id.

USCIS initially denied his application on January 29, 2015. USCIS explained that Donnelly failed to list CSH Supply Corporation in his employment history on either his 2001 or 2009 applications, even though a background check revealed that he was registered as the Chief...