Gonzalez v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Servs.

• Decision Date: 04 March 2022
• Docket Number: Civil Action 21-10286-FDS
• Parties: LUIS BRITO GONZALEZ, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

LUIS BRITO GONZALEZ, Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 21-10286-FDS

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

March 4, 2022

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

F. Dennis Saylor IV United States District Court Chief Judge

This is a dispute about an application for United States citizenship. Plaintiff Luis Brito Gonzalez, a lawful permanent resident of the United States, filed an application for citizenship that was administratively closed by defendant United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), allegedly in violation of federal law. Gonzalez seeks a writ of mandamus as well as an order directing USCIS to grant his application for naturalization under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 and declaring that the delay of his application was unlawful and discriminatory. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se.

Defendant has moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). For the following reasons, that motion will be granted.

I. Background

Unless otherwise noted, the following facts are stated as set forth in the complaint.

1

A. Factual Background

Luis Brito Gonzalez is a citizen of the Dominican Republic. (Compl. ¶ VI-1).^[1] On May 4, 1988, he was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident. (Id. ¶ VI-2). He is currently a resident of Lawrence, Massachusetts. (Id. ¶ IV-4).

USCIS is an agency of the Department of Homeland Security charged with processing naturalization applications. (Id. ¶ V-5). In order to obtain naturalization, applicants must, among other things, file a Form N-400, show that they “are a person of good moral character, ” and submit to an interview with USCIS. (Id. ¶¶ VI-7(a), (f); VI-12).

Gonzalez alleges that he filed a Form N-400 and that he was subsequently interviewed by USCIS on November 6, 2020. (Id. ¶ VI-12).^[2] He later learned that his application was administratively closed because USCIS alleged that he had been ordered removed from the United States on May 10, 2002. (Id. ¶ VI-13). He contends that he has never been sent an order of removal or a notice to appear in immigration court. (Id. ¶ VI-14). He further contends that his permanent resident identification number does not identify any removal proceedings in the database used to track the status of aliens in removal proceedings. (Id. ¶ VI-15). Finally, he contends that he otherwise meets all the requirements for naturalization under the INA. (Id. ¶ VI-10).

B. Procedural Background

On February 19, 2021, Gonzalez brought this action for mandamus and declaratory relief,

2

alleging that the court had jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C. §§ 555(b) and 706(1); 28 U.S.C. § 1331; 8 U.S.C. § 1329; and 28 U.S.C. § 1361. (Id. ¶ II-2).

USCIS has moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), contending that federal district courts only have jurisdiction over challenges to naturalization applications when USCIS has failed to make a determination within 120 days of the interview or USCIS has denied an application and the applicant has exhausted all administrative remedies.

II. Standard of Review

On a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction made pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), “the party invoking the jurisdiction of a federal court carries the burden of proving its existence.” Johansen v. United States, 506 F.3d 65, 68 (1st Cir. 2007) (quoting Murphy v. United States, 45 F.3d 520, 522 (1st Cir. 1995)). If the party seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction “fails to demonstrate a basis for jurisdiction, ” the motion to dismiss must be granted. Id. The court must “credit the plaintiff's well-pled factual allegations and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor.” Merlonghi v. United States, 620 F.3d 50, 54 (1st Cir. 2010). However, it may also “consider whatever evidence has been submitted, such as the depositions and exhibits submitted.” Id. (quoting Aversa v. United States, 99 F.3d 1200, 1210 (1st Cir. 1996)). “The attachment of exhibits to a Rule 12(b)(1) motion does not convert it to a Rule 56 motion.” Gonzalez v. United States, 284 F.3d 281, 288 (1st Cir. 2002).

III. Analysis

“The sole authority to naturalize persons as citizens of the United States is conferred upon the Attorney General.” 8 U.S.C. § 1421(a). If the Attorney General fails to grant an application for naturalization, there are three possible avenues for judicial review in the district courts. First, a district court can review the denial of a naturalization application that occurred

3

after a hearing before an immigration officer. 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c). Second, if a naturalization application is not acted upon within 120 days of examination, a district court may hold a hearing and either determine the matter or remand it to USCIS. 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). Finally, and rarely, a district court may provide mandamus relief if an applicant has exhausted all administrative remedies and he is owed a clear, nondiscretionary duty. 28 U.S.C. § 1361; Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 616-17 (1984). Each basis for subject-matter jurisdiction is discussed in turn.

A. Title 8

1.Section 1421(c)

Defendant first contends that plaintiff's application for naturalization does not qualify for judicial review under 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c). Section 1421(c) provides that “[a] person whose application for naturalization under this subchapter is denied, after a hearing before an immigration officer under section 1447(a) of this title, may seek review of such denial before the United States district court for the district in which such person resides . . . .”

Defendant contends that plaintiff's application has not been “denied, ” as contemplated by § 1421(c), because it lacks the authority to naturalize someone who is subject to a final order of removal. Instead, it administratively closed plaintiff's application after informing him that it “does not have the authority to adjudicate your Form N-400, because you are subject to an outstanding final finding of deportability.” (Torres Aff., Notice of Administratively Closed Application, Ex. 1).^[3]

4

Furthermore, and in any event, § 1421(c) only vests this Court with jurisdiction “after a hearing before an immigration officer” under § 1447(a).^[4] Even crediting plaintiff's contention that he received a personal interview, the complaint does not allege that he had a subsequent hearing before an immigration officer. For those reasons, the Court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction under § 1421(c).

2.Section 1447(b)

Defendant next contends that judicial review under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) is...