Jahan v. Houghton

• Decision Date: 04 January 2022
• Docket Number: 20-CV-4597 (MKB)
• Citation: 578 F.Supp.3d 362
• Parties: Israt JAHAN, Petitioner, v. Timothy HOUGHTON, District Director of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

578 F.Supp.3d 362

Israt JAHAN, Petitioner,

v.Timothy HOUGHTON, District Director of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service, Respondent.

20-CV-4597 (MKB)

United States District Court, E.D. New York.

Signed January 4, 2022

Peter M. Zirbes, Peter M. Zirbes, Esq., P.C., Forest Hills, NY, for Petitioner.

Kevin Yim, DOJ-USAO, Brooklyn, NY, for Respondent Michael Borgen.

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

MARGO K. BRODIE, United States District Judge:

Petitioner Israt Jahan commenced the above-captioned action on September 28, 2020, against Respondent Phyllis A. Coven as New York District Director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS"),¹ seeking a writ of mandamus directing USCIS to amend Petitioner's birth date on her Certificate of Naturalization. (Verified Pet. ("Pet.") ¶ 1, Docket Entry No. 1.) On September 7, 2021, Respondent requested a pre-motion conference in connection with its anticipated motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, respectively, or, in the alternative, for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56. (Resp't’s Mot. for Pre-Mot. Conf. ("Resp't’s Mot."), Docket Entry No. 12.) On September 14, 2021, Petitioner opposed the motion. (Pet'r’s Letter ("Pet'r’s Opp'n"), Docket Entry No. 13.) On September 24, 2021, the Court advised the parties that, "unless either party objects by [October 1, 2021], the Court will deem their pre-motion conference submissions to be the motion." (Order dated Sept. 24, 2021.) In addition, the Court directed the parties "to submit any additional briefing in letter form on or before [October 8, 2021]." (Id. ) Neither party objected to the Court's Order. Petitioner supplemented her opposition on October 13, 2021, (see Pet'r’s Letter Brief ("Pet'r’s Suppl. Opp'n"), Docket Entry No. 15), and Respondent filed a reply on October 26, 2021, (Resp't’s Reply in Supp. of Resp't’s Mot. ("Resp't’s Reply"), Docket Entry No. 17).

For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Respondent's motion and dismisses this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

I. Background

Petitioner entered the United States in June of 1991. (Pet. ¶ 4.) In 2001, Petitioner applied for U.S. citizenship. (Id. ¶ 8.) On February 12, 2002, after being sworn in as a U.S. citizen, Petitioner received her Certificate of Naturalization. (Id. ¶ 13; see also Certificate of Naturalization, annexed to Pet. as Ex. B, Docket Entry No. 1-2.) According to the birth certificate Petitioner possessed at the time she applied to become a U.S. citizen, Petitioner was born on XX/XX/1980, in Bangladesh. (Pet. ¶¶ 5, 7, 9; see also Birth Certificate, annexed to Pet. as Ex. A, Docket Entry No. 1-1.) However, Petitioner later learned that her actual birth date is XX/XX/1986. (Pet. ¶¶ 14, 20; see also Corrected Birth Certificate, annexed to Pet. as Ex. C, Docket Entry No. 1-3.) Therefore, on July 23, 2018, Petitioner petitioned USCIS to correct the birth date on her Certificate of Naturalization. (Pet. ¶ 22.) On October 3, 2018, USCIS denied her request on the grounds that she failed to meet the criteria for correction under 8 C.F.R. § 338.5(a) and (e). (Id. ¶ 23; see also USCIS Decision, annexed to Pet. as Ex. D, Docket Entry No. 1-4.) Petitioner appealed USCIS's decision, (Pet. ¶ 24), and USCIS's Administrative Appeals Office upheld the denial on the same grounds, (id. ¶ 25; see also Appeal Decision 1–2, annexed to Pet. as Ex. E, Docket Entry No. 1-5). Petitioner now requests that the Court direct Respondent "to amend and re-issue a new Certificate of Naturalization" containing Petitioner's "true and accurate date of birth." (Pet. ¶ 28.)

II. Discussion

a. Standard of review

A district court may dismiss an action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when the court "lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate it." Huntress v. United States , 810 F. App'x 74, 75 (2d Cir. 2020) (quoting Makarova v. United States , 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir. 2000) ); Cortlandt St. Recovery Corp. v. Hellas Telecomms., S.a.r.l. , 790 F.3d 411, 416–17 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting Makarova , 201 F.3d at 113 ); Shabaj v. Holder , 718 F.3d 48, 50 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting Aurecchione v. Schoolman Transp. Sys., Inc. , 426 F.3d 635, 638 (2d Cir. 2005) ). " ‘[C]ourt[s] must take all facts alleged in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of [the] plaintiff,’ but ‘jurisdiction must be shown affirmatively, and that showing is not made by drawing from the pleadings inferences favorable to the party asserting it.’ " Morrison v. Nat'l Austl. Bank Ltd. , 547 F.3d 167, 170 (2d Cir. 2008) (citation omitted) (first quoting Nat. Res. Def. Council v. Johnson , 461 F.3d 164, 171 (2d Cir. 2006) ; and then quoting APWU v. Potter , 343 F.3d 619, 623 (2d Cir. 2003) ), aff'd , 561 U.S. 247, 130 S.Ct. 2869, 177 L.Ed.2d 535 (2010). Ultimately, "the party asserting subject matter jurisdiction ‘has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that it exists.’ " Tandon v. Captain's Cove Marina of Bridgeport, Inc. , 752 F.3d 239, 243 (2d Cir. 2014) (quoting Makarova , 201 F.3d at 113 ); see also Suarez v. Mosaic Sales Sols. US Operating Co. , 720 F. App'x 52, 53 (2d Cir. 2018) (citing Morrison , 547 F.3d at 170 ); Clayton v. United States , No. 18-CV-5867, 2020 WL 1545542, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2020) (quoting Tandon , 752 F.3d at 243 ); Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon , 369 F. Supp. 3d 547, 552 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (quoting Tandon , 752 F.3d at 243 ).

b. The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction

The Government argues that (1) the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to amend or order USCIS to amend Petitioner's naturalization certificate because it was issued after October 1, 1991, when Congress transferred this authority to the executive branch, (Resp't’s Mot. 1–2), (2) assuming, arguendo , that subject matter jurisdiction exists, the Court should dismiss the Petition for failure to state a claim or, in the alternative, grant summary judgment because USCIS "acted in accordance with its regulations" in denying Petitioner's request and "neither USCIS's decision nor the promulgation of [the relevant regulations] was arbitrary and capricious," (id. at 3; Resp't’s Reply 3), and (3) "service of process was insufficient because [Petitioner] served neither [the USCIS New York City District Office] nor the Attorney General, and she served USCIS at the incorrect address," (Resp't’s Mot. 2 n.3 (citation omitted)).

Petitioner concedes that "under an analysis of the current state of the immigration laws," including "the repeal of 8 C.F.R. [§] 334.16 in 2011, and the simultaneous addition of 8 C.F.R. [§] 338.5(e)," judicial review of USCIS's denial of her application has been "effectively foreclosed," and "the USCIS denial itself has been statutorily mandated." (Pet'r’s Opp'n 1.) Nevertheless, Petitioner cites 28 U.S.C. § 1361 ; the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 702 ("APA"); and 28 U.S.C. § 1367 as potential bases for subject matter jurisdiction.² (Pet. ¶ 3; see Pet'r’s Opp'n 1.) Petitioner also argues that "summary judgment must be denied as premature as there has been no discovery." (Pet'r’s Opp'n 1; see also Pet'r’s Suppl. Opp'n 1.) Petitioner does not respond to the Government's argument that service of process was insufficient. (See generally Pet'r’s Opp'n; Pet'r’s Suppl. Opp'n.)

i. Lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and may not hear cases if they lack subject matter jurisdiction over the issues presented. See Lyndonville Sav. Bank & Tr. Co. v. Lussier , 211 F.3d 697, 700–01 (2d Cir. 2000). "In 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332(a), Congress granted federal courts jurisdiction over two general types of cases: cases that ‘aris[e] under’ federal law, § 1331, and cases in which the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and there is diversity of citizenship among the parties, § 1332(a)." Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Jackson , 587 U.S. ––––, ––––, 139 S. Ct. 1743, 1746, 204 L.Ed.2d 34 (2019). Federal question jurisdiction provides federal courts jurisdiction over "all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." Bounds v. Pine Belt Mental Health Care Res. , 593 F.3d 209, 215 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ). A plaintiff properly invokes section 1331 jurisdiction when he or she pleads a colorable claim "arising under" the Constitution or laws of the United States. Id. ; see also Fairfield Cnty. Med. Ass'n v. United Healthcare of New Eng., Inc. , 557 F. App'x 53, 55 (2d Cir. 2014) ("A cause of action ‘arises under’ federal law and thus confers subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ‘when the plaintiff's "well-pleaded complaint" raises an issue of federal law.’ " (quoting New York v. Shinnecock Indian Nation , 686 F.3d 133, 138 (2d Cir. 2012) )).

"Until 1991, courts had ‘[e]xclusive jurisdiction to naturalize persons as citizens of the United States’ " pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1421(a). Teng v. Dist. Dir., USCIS , 820 F.3d 1106, 1109 (9th Cir. 2016) (alteration in original) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1421(a) (1988) ); McKenzie v. USCIS, Dist. Dir. , 761 F.3d 1149, 1156 (10th Cir. 2014). "Courts also had authority ... ‘to correct, reopen, alter, modify, or vacate [a] judgment or decree naturalizing such person.’ " Teng , 820 F.3d at 1109 (alteration in original) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1451(i) ). In the Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-649, 104 Stat. 4978 ("Immigration Act"), "Congress transferred ‘[t]he sole authority to naturalize persons as citizens of the United States’ from the courts to the executive branch, effective October 1, 1991." Id. (alteration in original) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1421(a) ). "As part of these statutory revisions, Congress ... also shifted the power to ‘correct, reopen,...