Olayan v. Holder

• Decision Date: 15 December 2011
• Docket Number: No. 1:11–cv–0003–SEB–DML.,1:11–cv–0003–SEB–DML.
• Citation: 833 F.Supp.2d 1052
• Parties: Ibrahim R. OLAYAN, Plaintiff, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Attorney General of the United States, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Indiana

833 F.Supp.2d 1052

Ibrahim R. OLAYAN, Plaintiff,

v.Eric H. HOLDER, Attorney General of the United States, et al., Defendants.

No. 1:11–cv–0003–SEB–DML.

United States District Court,

S.D. Indiana,

Indianapolis Division.

Dec. 15, 2011.

Claire M. Ty, Abbott Harris & Perelli, Fishers, IN, for Plaintiff.

Aaron Steven Goldsmith, Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, District Court Section, Christopher Westley Dempsey, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendants.

ORDER ADDRESSING PENDING MOTIONS

SARAH EVANS BARKER, District Judge.

This cause is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Affirmative Defense [Docket No. 20], filed on April 21, 2011; Defendants' Combined Motion for Summary Judgment and Partial Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 29], filed on May 27, 2011; and Plaintiff's Cross–Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 33], filed on July 6, 2011. For the reasons detailed in this entry, Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Affirmative Defense is DENIED; Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED; Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED; and Plaintiff's Cross–Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

Factual Background

Ibrahim Olayan is a native and citizen of Jordan. On July 18, 1992, he entered the United States via KLM Airlines, arriving at Detroit Metropolitan Airport's international terminal. First Am. Compl. Ex. 2 (“FBI Ltr.”) ¶ 1. Immigration enforcement officers detained Mr. Olayan ¹ during initial inspection because he was found to have used his brother's passport to effect admission to the United States. Id.; First Am. Compl. ¶ 4. After Mr. Olayan's initial processing, representatives from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) engaged him in a series of interviews during which Mr. Olayan supplied information “associated with a matter of current investigative interest to the FBI and other federal agencies.” FBI Ltr. ¶ 2. Preliminary results of a polygraph examination from one session “indicated that [Mr. Olayan] was not deceptive in his responses,” and follow-up research led the FBI to conclude that his information was credible. Id.

Mr. Olayan filed a Request for Asylum in the United States (“Form I–589”) in December of 1992. Defs.' Br. for S.J. Ex. 1 at 1. On October 21, 1993, he and certain FBI representatives presented in camera testimony before an immigration judge (IJ). The FBI presented evidence of Mr. Olayan's interviews and the violent crimes about which he had provided information. It was the FBI's position at this hearing that, should Mr. Olayan return to Jordan, it would “place[ ] his life in severe jeopardy.” First Am. Compl. ¶ 5. Thus, based on the available evidence, the IJ issued a Memorandum of Oral Decision. Pl.'s Mot. to Strike Ex. A. The IJ indicated by check mark on the memorandum form that “[t]he application for Asylum/ withholding of Deportation under Section 208(a) of the Act was granted/ denied/withdrawn.” Id. (emphasis supplied by IJ).² Further, the IJ noted that, barring any appeal by Mr. Olayan, the decision was final.

Following these proceedings, Mr. Olayan embarked on a quest for United States citizenship. He sent his Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (“Form I–485”), having signed it under penalty of perjury, to the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) ³ on October 31, 1994,⁴ and INS officially filed his Form I–485 on November 8, 1994. First Am. Compl. ¶ 7; Defs.' Br. for S.J. Ex. 1 at 1. On Part C of Form I–485, Mr. Olayan did not indicate military service or any past or present membership or affiliation with organizations. He also marked “no” in answer to the following question:

Have you ever engaged in, conspired to engage in, or do you intend to engage in, or have you ever solicited membership or funds for, or have you through any means ever assisted or provided any type of material support to any person or organization that has ever engaged or conspired to engage, in sabotage, kidnapping, political assassination, hijacking, or any other form of terrorist activity?

Defs.' Br. for S.J. Ex. 1 at 1–2. The INS approved his Form I–485 and adjusted his status to that of permanent resident. Sometime in 2000, Mr. Olayan received his permanent resident card, which reflects that he has been a United States resident since October 1, 1998. First Am. Compl. ¶ 8; First Am. Compl. Ex. 3.

In June of 2003, Mr. Olayan filed an Application for Naturalization (the “N–400”) with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). The agency received his N–400 on June 12, 2003. First Am. Compl. ¶ 9. On July 30, 2008, Mr. Olayan filed a mandamus action in this court seeking an order to compel Defendants to schedule a citizenship interview. After the Court denied Defendants' First Motion to Dismiss, Defendants interviewed Mr. Olayan under oath on April 23, 2009. Id. ¶¶ 10–12. Mr. Olayan admitted at this meeting, inter alia, that he was a member of the Islamic Mujahidin group in Jordan. Moreover, he served the group as a courier of letters between Jordan and Syria, and he had intended to join the group's 1990 plan to bomb the U.S. Embassy in Jordan. Defs.' Br. for S.J. at 3–4; Pl.'s Br. for S.J. at 4. USCIS denied his eligibility for naturalization on June 18, 2009, citing the following reasons:

[Y]ou failed to show that you had the required continuous residence to be eligible for Naturalization under section 316 of the Act; you ... failed to show that you are a person of good moral character; and you ... failed to demonstrate that you were lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence in accordance with all applicable provisions of this Act ....

Defs.' Br. for S.J. Ex. 1 at 2.

Mr. Olayan timely filed a Form N–336 request for a rehearing of his Application for Naturalization on July 13, 2009. First Am. Compl. Ex. 1 at 2. In support of his request, Mr. Olayan submitted a statement from his attorney, which explained that he had misunderstood the term “arrested” and other N–400 questions and also emphasized his cooperation with the FBI and compliance with the Refugee Act of 1980. Id. He appeared before a USCIS official on November 6, 2009 for a de novo hearing. He subsequently “decided to file this current proceedings to compel Defendants to make a decision on Plaintiff's hearing” ⁵ on January 3, 2011. First Am. Compl. ¶ 15. On March 3, 2011, Defendants issued a decision reaffirming the denial of Mr. Olayan's Application for Naturalization. Id. ¶ 16.

Mr. Olayan filed his First Amended Complaint with this court on May 19, 2011. As his first cause of action, he seeks de novo review of Defendants' denial of his Application for Naturalization, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c). He also alleges that he has been a permanent resident of the United States since 1998. Finally, in two related causes of action, Mr. Olayan claims that Defendants' denial of his Application for Naturalization contravenes 8 U.S.C. § 1422 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

Legal Analysis

“A person whose application for naturalization ... 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.” 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c). Our review of this denial is de novo; the Court is required to make its own findings of fact and conclusions of law. Id.; see also O'Sullivan v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 453 F.3d 809, 812 (7th Cir.2006) (noting that “Congress specifically calls for de novo review in naturalization cases, while ordering great deference in other immigration contexts”).

I. Motion to Strike Affirmative DefenseA. Standard of Review

Acting sua sponte or upon a party's motion, a court may strike from a pleading any “insufficient” defense asserted “or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous ⁶ matter.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f). Motions asserted under Rule 12(f) are “ordinarily not granted unless the language in the pleading at issue has no possible relation to the controversy and is clearly prejudicial.” Hofmann v. Aspen Dental Mgmt., Inc., No. 3:10–cv–37–SEB–WGH, 2011 WL 3902773, at *3 (S.D.Ind. Sept. 6, 2011) (quoting Baker v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 830 F.Supp. 1161, 1168 (S.D.Ind.1993)). The Seventh Circuit has gone so far as to say that motions to strike “will not be granted unless it appears to a certainty that plaintiffs would succeed despite any state of facts which could be proved in support of the defense.” Williams v. Jader Fuel Co., 944 F.2d 1388, 1400 (7th Cir.1991). Affirmative defenses are usually stricken “only when they are insufficient on the face of the pleadings.” Id. (quoting Heller Fin. v. Midwhey Powder Co., 883 F.2d 1286, 1294 (7th Cir.1989)). Ultimately, the decision to strike material is within the discretion of the district court. See Talbot, 961 F.2d at 665.

B. Discussion

Mr. Olayan has moved to strike the fourth paragraph of Defendants' Answer (“Paragraph 4”) and Defendants' fifth affirmative defense. Paragraph 4 states as follows:

Defendants admit that plaintiff is a native and citizen of Jordan. Defendants further admit that plaintiff was granted permanent legal residence status[,] but this grant was not in compliance with law. Defendants deny that plaintiff was lawfully granted permanent residence status and deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 4 [of Plaintiff's Complaint].

Answer ¶ 4. The fifth affirmative defense is that “Plaintiff's claims are barred because plaintiff was never lawfully granted legal permanent resident status.” Id. at 5. Mr. Olayan alleges that both Paragraph 4 of the Government's Answer and this defense are legally insufficient, would lead to burdensome discovery, and have no bearing on whether Defendants lawfully denied his Application for Naturalization. Pl.'s Mot. to Strike at 2. Nevertheless, because Mr. Olayan only offers bare assertions in...