Yi v. United States
| Decision Date | 31 March 2016 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. H-14-3289 |
| Parties | ARREDONDO YI, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
This case arises from the intersection of the procedures that regulate immigration proceedings and some of the substantive rights and obligations at issue in those proceedings. Arredondo Yi sued in 2014, seeking a declaratory judgment that he is a United States citizen. Yi claimed the right to relief under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 555 et seq. and § 701 et seq.; the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361; the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1433(a) (1999); and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201.
The government moved to dismiss on the grounds that this court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and that Yi had failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. (Docket Entry No. 18). Yi responded, the government replied, and both parties submitted numerous surreplies. (Docket Entries No. 31, 36, 35, 37, 40, 41, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53). The court heard argument on the motion. (Docket Entry No. 43). Based on the motion, the response and replies, the record, the pleadings, and the arguments of counsel, the court grants the motion to dismiss. Final judgment is entered separately. The reasons are explained in detail below.
Yi was born in 1971 in South Korea to Chong Pun Yi, a citizen of South Korea. (Docket Entry No. 1 at ¶ 13). In January 1975, his mother married Roberto Arredondo, a United States citizen and member of the United States military stationed in South Korea. (Id.). Arredondo legally adopted Yi. (Id. at ¶ 13 and Ex. C ). In February 1976, when Yi was four, he came to the United States with his father as a lawful permanent resident. (Id. at ¶ 13 and Ex. E).
On January 26, 1989, about five months before Yi turned eighteen, Arredondo filed a Form N-402 Application to File Petition for Naturalization in Behalf of Child with the Immigration and Naturalization Service. (Id. at ¶ 13 and Ex. F). It is undisputed that Arredondo failed to provide all the information and documents the Application instructions called for. The Application Arredondo filed on Yi's behalf did not include a copy of the adoption decree, a record of Yi's fingerprints, or photographs. It did not include the date, location, or court of Yi's adoption. The Application instructions expressly required this information. (Docket Entry No. 18, Ex. 4); UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE HANDBOOK FOR CONTACT REPRESENTATIVES, 10-61 (1981).
The parties do dispute whether the government sent Arredondo a request for evidence asking for the missing information. The government has produced a copy of the front page of a request for evidence addressed to Arredondo and reminding him that he had failed to provide required documents. (Docket Entry No. 18 at Ex. 5). The copy the government produced does not give a timeline for Yi to send the documents, but the government alleges that the back of the form, whichis not copied, would have instructed Yi to comply within thirty days or the file would be closed—not denied, but closed.
Yi disputes that the government sent the request for evidence to his father. Yi asserts that at trial, he would testify that Arredondo, who died in 2004, kept meticulous records and would have responded to any request for evidence that he received. It is undisputed that there was no response. Because of this, the agency administratively closed the file. The Application was neither granted nor denied.
Twenty-four years later, on November 6, 2013, the agency—then the USCIS— denied the application. (Id. at ¶ 14 and Ex. F). The USCIS based its denial on the fact that Yi was over 18, citing 8 C.F.R. § 322.2(a) (1999), for the requirement that the applicant be 18 both when he applied for, and when he is naturalized as, a citizen. (Id. at ¶ 14 and Ex. F). Section 322.2(a) was based on § 1433 of the Immigration and Nationality Act in effect in 1999, not on the Act in effect when Arredondo filed the Application on Yi's behalf.
Although the government sent no notice of agency action for over 20 years, neither Arredondo nor Yi followed up to ask about the status. Neither Yi nor his father filed anything beyond the incomplete Form N-402 Application to File Petition for Naturalization. No Form N-600 Application for a Certificate of Citizenship was filed, a necessary step after an Application is granted to complete the naturalization process.
By 2013, Yi had an extensive criminal history, including three separate misdemeanor larceny convictions between 2007 and 2013 and a felony possession of cocaine conviction in 2013.1 On November 21, 2013, approximately two weeks after denying the Application Arredondo had filed for Yi, the Department of Homeland Security sent Yi a notice to appear before an Immigration Judge and placed him in removal proceedings based on his criminal convictions. (Docket Entry No. 1 at ¶ 15). On December 11, 2013, Yi asked the Immigration Judge to terminate the removal proceedings so that he could file a federal district court action to claim that he was already a citizen. (Id.). On February 21, 2014, Yi moved for cancellation of removal, again asserting that he was a United States citizen. (Id.). The Immigration Judge denied his motion to terminate and his request for cancellation of removal on April 3, 2014, and Yi appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals on July 18, 2014. (Id.). In October 2014, the Board reversed the denial of cancellation of removal and remanded to the Immigration Judge. (Docket Entry No. 21 Ex. 24).
On November 12, 2014, Yi filed this declaratory judgment action. He claims that the 24-year delay in acting on the Application Arredondo had filed, and its denial, violated the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 555 et seq. and § 701 et seq.; the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361; and the Immigration and Nationality Act 8 U.S.C. § 1433 (1999). He sought a judgment declaring him a United States citizen and an order requiring the United States and its agencies to issue him a certificate of citizenship. (Docket Entry No. 1 at ¶ 15).
On January 16, 2015, the USCIS vacated its 2013 decision denying the Application to File a Petition for Naturalization that Arredondo had filed on Yi's behalf and issued a new decision reaching the same result, but on different grounds. (Docket Entry No. 18, Ex. 24). The 2013 decision was based on the fact that Yi was over 18 when the Application was denied. The 2015 order recognized that the earlier decision erroneously applied the 1994 version of the Immigration and Nationality Act, §§ 341(a), 322(a), and the current version §§ 320, 322, not the version in effect in 1989, when Arredondo filed the Application. Under the applicable version of the Act, the district court had jurisdiction to grant naturalization, and Arredondo had to file a Petition for Naturalization with the district court. The 2015 decision also noted that the Application was missing required information, and that Arredondo had not responded to the 1989 request for evidence and had not filed a complete naturalization petition for Yi.2
The Immigration Judge cancelled the removal proceedings on April 16, 2015, and Yi was released from immigration custody. (Docket Entry No. 42).
The government has moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) based on the lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The government argues first that the jurisdictional exclusions of 8 U.S.C. § 1503(a)(1) and (2) apply, because Yi's citizenship claim either "(1) arose by reason of, or in connection with [a] removal proceeding . . . , or (2) is in issue in any such removal proceeding." (Docket Entry No. 18 at 23-25). The government also argues that Yi's claims for relief under theAdministrative Procedure Act, the Mandamus Act, and the Immigration and Nationality Act are moot because they are based on the vacated 2013 decision. (Id. at 25-27).
The government has also moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The government argues that a court cannot grant citizenship based on equitable estoppel and that in any event, Yi's allegations do not support its application. The government argues that Yi's statutory claims fail because he does not qualify for naturalization. (Docket Entry No. 34 at 21-25). Finally, the government argues that even if Yi qualified for naturalization when the agency denied the 1989 Application, the agency correctly denied it because it was incomplete. (Docket Entry No. 41 at 3).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) applies to challenges to a court's subject-matter jurisdiction. "A case is properly dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction when the court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case." Home Builders Ass'n of Miss., Inc. v. City of Madison, 143 F.3d 1006, 1010 (5th Cir.1998). "Courts may dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on any one of three bases: (1) the complaint alone; (2) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts in the record; or (3) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court's resolution of disputed facts." Clark v. Tarrant County, 798 F.2d 736, 741 (5th Cir. 1986) (citing Williamson v. Tucker, 645 F.2d 404, 413 (5th Cir.1981)).
The plaintiff has the burden of showing subject-matter jurisdiction. See Paterson v. Weinberger, 644 F.2d 521, 523 (5th Cir. 1981). A district court examining a factual challenge to subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), which does not implicate the merits of the action,has...
To continue reading
Request your trial