Franco Sciamarelli v. District Director, U.S. Citize, et al

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Franco Ariel Sciamarelli. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 16-16733

Date Filed: 06/16/2017

Page: 1 of 6

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-16733
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:15-cv-24288-KMM

FRANCO ARIEL SCIAMARELLI,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DISTRICT DIRECTOR, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES,
FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, U.S. CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION
SERVICES,
DIRECTOR, US CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES,
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(June 16, 2017)

Case: 16-16733

Date Filed: 06/16/2017

Page: 2 of 6

Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, JULIE CARNES, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Franco Sciamarelli filed a lawsuit seeking review of the denial of his
application for naturalization. See 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) (permitting federal district
courts to review de novo the denial of an application for naturalization). The
defendants filed a motion to dismiss his complaint for failure to state a claim under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which the district court granted. This is
Sciamarelli’s appeal.
Sciamarelli, a citizen of Argentina, was lawfully admitted to the United
States under the visa waiver program in November 2000, but he remained in the
country beyond the period authorized. 1 In June 2001, when Sciamarelli was 17
years old, his stepfather, who had been admitted to the United States as a lawful
permanent resident, filed on Sciamarelli’s behalf a Form I-130 visa petition, which,
if approved, would have made him eligible to receive a visa. More than four years
later, on December 5, 2005, Customs and Immigration Services (CIS) approved
that petition and Sciamarelli received a visa.

1

Because this is an appeal from the district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6), the following facts are taken from Sciamarelli’s complaint, and we accept
those facts as true and construe them in the light most favorable to him. See Butler v. Sheriff of
Palm Beach Cty., 685 F.3d 1261, 1263 n.2 (11th Cir. 2012). Our review of the district court’s
judgment is de novo. Id. at 1265.
2

Case: 16-16733

Date Filed: 06/16/2017

Page: 3 of 6

Sciamarelli’s stepfather was naturalized as a United States citizen on June
29, 2007, when Sciamarelli was 23 years old. Based on his stepfather’s
citizenship, Sciamarelli filed an “Application for Adjustment of Status” to lawful
permanent resident. CIS approved that application in March 2008. Having been
admitted as a permanent resident (which is a prerequisite to citizenship),
Sciamarelli filed an application for naturalization. CIS eventually denied his
application for naturalization, concluding that in 2008 it had erroneously granted
his application for adjustment of status to permanent resident. And because he was
not a lawful permanent resident, he did not meet all of the requirements for
citizenship and was not eligible for naturalization.
Sciamarelli filed an administrative challenge to that denial, and CIS affirmed
its earlier decision, concluding that it should not have adjusted his status to lawful
permanent resident in 2008 because (1) he had not continuously maintained lawful
status in the United States since his arrival, and (2) he did not fall within the
exception to that requirement, which permits adjustment to permanent resident
status for aliens who have not maintained lawful status since entering the country
but who qualify as an “immediate relative” of a United States citizen.
Under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a), “[t]he status of an alien who was inspected and
admitted or paroled into the United States . . . may be adjusted by the Attorney
General . . . to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence” if he
3

Case: 16-16733

Date Filed: 06/16/2017

Page: 4 of 6

meets certain qualifications. Generally an alien may not be lawfully admitted for
permanent residence if he “has failed . . . to maintain continuously a lawful status
since ent[ering] the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1255(c)(2). One exception to that
rule provides that an alien who qualifies as an “immediate relative” of a United
States citizen may adjust his status to lawful permanent resident even if he has
failed to continuously maintain a lawful status. Id. “Immediate relatives” include
a citizen’s unmarried children if they are under the age of 21. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1151(b)(2)(A)(i) (“The term ‘immediate relatives’ means the children, spouses,
and parents of a citizen of the United States . . . .”); 8 U.S.C. § 1101(b)(1)
(providing that the term “child” means certain people, including a stepchild, under
the age of 21).
Sciamarelli concedes that he failed to continuously maintain a lawful status
since entering the United States. But he contends that he qualified as his
stepfather’s “immediate relative” when he filed his application for adjustment of
status to permanent resident in 2007, even though he was 23 years old at that time,
and as a result CIS lawfully adjusted his status and admitted him for permanent
residence in 2008. Whether Sciamarelli is correct turns on whether his age was
adjusted to under 21 when he sought to be admitted as a permanent resident in
2007.

4

Case: 16-16733

Date Filed: 06/16/2017

Page: 5 of 6

8 U.S.C. § 1151(f) sets out special “[r]ules for determining whether certain
aliens are immediate relatives.” If a visa petition is filed by a child of a United
States citizen, then the child’s age “on the date on which the petition is filed”
governs whether that child meets the age requirement to classify as an “immediate
relative” of a United States citizen. 8 U.S.C. § 1151(f)(1). However, if a visa
petition is filed by a child of a lawfully admitted non-citizen parent, and if that
parent later becomes naturalized while the petition is pending, then determination
of whether the child qualifies as an “immediate relative” is made using the child’s
age “on the date of the parent’s naturalization.” 8 U.S.C. § 1151(f)(2).
Sciamarelli contends that CIS, when it approved his application for
permanent residence, could have concluded that, under § 1151(f)(1), it was
permitted to adjust his age to account for the four years his Form I-130 visa
petition was pending. And, when those four years are subtracted from his age at
the time his stepfather was naturalized, his adjusted age was under 21, qualifying
him as an “immediate relative.” He argues that CIS could have approved his
application for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident by finding that he
was his stepfather’s “immediate relative.”
Sciamarelli was 23 and had no pending visa petition at the time his
stepfather was naturalized. Under those circumstances, CIS was not permitted to
adjust his age to under 21. For that reason, Sciamarelli was not the child of a
5

Case: 16-16733

Date Filed: 06/16/2017

Page: 6 of 6

United States citizen and did not qualify as his stepfather’s “immediate relative”
when CIS approved his application for adjustment of status to lawful permanent
resident. And because Sciamarelli did not qualify as an “immediate relative” of a
United States citizen and had not continuously maintained lawful status since
entering the country, he was not eligible to become a lawful permanent resident.2
As a result, Sciamarelli’s complaint failed to state a claim showing that he was
entitled to naturalization.
AFFIRMED.

2

Sciamarelli alternatively points to § 1153(h)(1), which he contends permits his age to be
adjusted for purposes of his petition. That provision, however, is limited to determining the age
of a child in a specific visa preference category and does not adjust an alien’s age for “immediate
relative” purposes. See In re Daniel Edgar Zamora-Molina, 25 I. & N. Dec. 606, 611 (B.I.A.
2011) (“Section [1153](h)(1) . . . does not, however, apply to determinations of immediate
relative status. By its terms, [it] is limited to calculating the adjusted age of aliens in the 2Apreference category and derivative beneficiaries.”).
6