Obianyo v. U.S.C.I.S. Pa.
| Decision Date | 25 March 2019 |
| Docket Number | Civil No. 17-1467 (NLH/KMW) |
| Parties | UCHENNA OBIANYO, Plaintiff, v. U.S.C.I.S. PENNSYLVANIA, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
UCHENNA OBIANYO
CHERRY HILL, NJ 08034
Appearing pro se.
JORDAN MILOWE ANGER
OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY
NEWARK, NJ 07102
On behalf of Defendants.
This case concerns claims against the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Mount Laurel, New Jersey Offices of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") (collectively, "Defendants") alleging that Plaintiff Uchenna Obianyo was wrongfully denied naturalization and citizenship. Presently before this Court is Plaintiff's second Motion to Expedite and Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and partial Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction.1 For the reasons discussed below, this Court will deny Plaintiff's Motion to Expedite, grant Defendants' partial Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, and grant Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.
In October 1989, Plaintiff Uchenna Obianyo, a native and citizen of Nigeria, entered the United States on a visitor visa. (Defs.' Ex. B.) In April 1992, Plaintiff married a U.S. citizen in Tennessee. Plaintiff was granted Legal Permanent Resident ("LPR") status May 10, 1994. (Defs.' Ex. A.)
While residing in Tennessee, Plaintiff was charged with three counts of stalking under Tennessee Code Annotated § 39017-315 on January 27, 1996. He pled guilty before the General Sessions Court of Davidson County, Tennessee in February 1997. (Defs.' Ex. C.) As part of the special conditions of his sentence, Plaintiff was ordered to reside with or be supervised by family members in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Id. In April2000, Plaintiff was again charged with stalking, this time under 18 Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes § 2709.1. (Defs.' Ex. D.) Plaintiff pled guilty to stalking before the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas. (Defs.' Ex. D.)
In April 1999, Plaintiff filed the first of five Applications for Naturalization, Form N-400, ("Form One"). Plaintiff withdrew Form One on January 18, 2001. (Defs.' SOMF ¶ 7.) That same month, Plaintiff was issued a Notice to Appear ("I-862") that alleged Plaintiff was removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) (); additional removability charges were added in July 2001 under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii) (). (Defs. Ex. F.)
Immigration Judge Walter A. Durling ("IJ Durling") issued a removal order on October 2, 2001. (Defs.' Ex. G.) Plaintiff was again found removable on April 29, 2004 by IJ Durling but was granted withholding and deferred removal under Article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture.2 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(regarding withholding removal); 8 C.F.R. § 208.17(a) (regarding deferred removal); (Defs.' Ex. H.).
Plaintiff filed his second Form-400 ("Form Two") in September 2012; the third was filed in April 2013 ("Form Three"); the fourth was filed in January 2016 ("Form Four"); and the fifth, and final, ("Form Five") was filed in April 2016. The Philadelphia, Pennsylvania USCIS Office denied Plaintiff's Form Two and Form Three in November 2013. In August 2014, Plaintiff filed a Request for Hearing on a Decision in Naturalization Proceedings ("Form N-336") which was denied by the Philadelphia Office in December 2014. Plaintiff's Form Four and Form Five were denied by the Mt. Laurel, New Jersey USCIS Office in August 2016. Plaintiff did not file a Form N-336 to appeal the applications denied by the Mt. Laurel Office.
Plaintiff filed his initial complaint alleging he was wrongfully denied naturalization and citizenship on March 3, 2017, seeking relief (1) in the form of an appeal of the USCIS decisions denying his applications for naturalization because of his previous criminal convictions and deportation proceedings and (2) petitioning for mandamus to compel USCIS officers toadminister the Oath of Citizenship and grant Plaintiff his Certificate of Citizenship.
This Court granted Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis on January 3, 2018. Plaintiff filed his first Motion to Expedite in March 2018, which was denied, without prejudice, by this Court's April 6, 2018 Order. On July 13, 2018 Defendants filed an amended Motion for Summary Judgment and partial Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Plaintiff filed his second Motion to Expedite on September 14, 2018 ( ) which was unopposed by Defendant. The Court received a letter from Plaintiff on October 11, 2018 ( ) which - together with Plaintiff's September 14, 2018 Motion to Expedite - this Court construes as a response to the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.
The Court finds these issues fully briefed and ripe for adjudication. The Court construes Plaintiff's complaint and responses as (1) an appeal of the USCIS decision denying his applications for naturalization and (2) a request for mandamus ordering an officer of USCIS to administer the Oath of Citizenship and granting Plaintiff his Certificate of Citizenship.
The denial of a naturalization application is reviewed de novo. 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c). The applicant has the burden of proving "by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she meets all the requirements for naturalization." Ijomah-Nwosu v. Holder, No. 14-2527, 2015 WL 5097925, at *1 (D.N.J. Aug. 31, 2015) (citing 8 C.F.R. § 316.2(b)). In conducting its review, the Court is not bound by the factual or legal conclusions of the USCIS. 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c); see also, Shah v. Thompson, No. 11-3082, 2012 WL 6131122, at *1 (D.N.J. Dec. 10, 2012) ().
A district court is a court of limited jurisdiction and may review a USCIS decision in limited circumstances. Before an applicant for naturalization may seek review of a USCIS denial before a district court,3 he must exhaust administrativeremedies. Exhaustion of administrative remedies is a jurisdictional prerequisite; this court does not have the power to hear a claim without such exhaustion. Omar v. Mueller, 501 F. Supp. 2d 636, 641 (D.N.J. 2007).
One of the exhaustion requirements necessary in the review of naturalization decisions is that an applicant file a Form N-336 and receive a ruling from the USCIS. A plaintiff whose application for naturalization has been denied may, after a hearing before an immigration officer, seek review of his denial before a district court. 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c); Omar, 501 F. Supp. 2d at 641 (D.N.J. 2007) () (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1447(a)); McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 144 (1992).
Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he has exhausted his administrative remedies as to his first,4 fourth, and fifth N-400 applications. Plaintiff did not file a Form N-336 as required under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(a) before seeking district court review.5 This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) over Plaintiff's first, fourth, and fifth N-400 applications because Plaintiff failed to exhaust the administrative remedies mandated by statute. As such, claims relating to Form Four and Form Five will be dismissed, withoutprejudice.6 Because the Court finds that claims under Form One are moot because Form One was withdrawn at the USCIS, the Court will dismiss those claims with prejudice.
The Court maintains subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's second and third applications under 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) because he has exhausted the required administrative remedies. Thus, this court maintains subject matter jurisdiction over those claims and will address their merits below.
Summary judgment is appropriate where the Court is satisfied that "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits if any, . . . demonstrate the absence of an issue of material fact" and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,322-23 (1986) (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 56) (internal quotations omitted). The non-moving party's evidence "is to be believed and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor." Marino v. Indus. Crating Co., 358 F.3d 341, 347 (3d Cir. 2004) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986)).
An issue is "genuine" if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party.Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. A fact is "material" if there are disputes of the facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law. Id. The non-moving party bears the burden to sufficiently establish the existence of an essential element of its case - beyond the pleadings - on which it bears the burden of proof. Failure to do so entitles the moving party to judgment as a matter of law. Goldstein v. Repossessors, Inc., 815 F.3d 142, 146 (3d Cir. 2016); see also Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 324. "If the adverse party does not . . . respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against the adverse party." SEC v. J.W. Barclay & Co., Inc., 442 F.3d 834, 849 (3d Cir. 2006).
Initially, the moving party bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial