Tesfay v. Holder et al
Filing
22
ORDER Denying 19 Motion for Order Amending Naturalization Certificate. The 1 Petition to Amend Certificate of Naturalization is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Philip M. Pro on 4/26/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
5
6
YETBAREK YOHANNES TESFAY,
7
Petitioner,
8
v.
9
ERIC HOLDER, et al.,
10
Respondents.
11
12
***
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2:11-CV-01545-PMP-VCF
ORDER
Presently before this Court is Petitioner Yetbarek Yohannes Tesfay’s (“Tesfay”)
13
Motion for Order Amending Naturalization Certificate (Doc. #19), filed on January 11,
14
2013. Respondents Eric Holder, Alejandro Mayorkas, John Kramer, and Janet Napolitano
15
(“Respondents”) filed a Response (Doc. #20) on February 14, 2013. Tesfay filed a Reply
16
(Doc. #21) on March 14, 2013.
17
I. BACKGROUND
18
Tesfay alleges he was born in Eritrea on January 12, 1948. (Compl. (Doc. #1)
19
at 2.) Due to civil unrest in Eritrea, Tesfay fled from Eritrea to Sudan in 1965. (Id.) Upon
20
entering Sudan, Tesfay alleges the Sudanese Interior Minister incorrectly recorded his date
21
of birth as October 1, 1955. (Id.) However, Tesfay was unable to correct the birth date
22
recorded on the documents he obtained in Sudan. (Id.)
23
Tesfay eventually relocated to the United States and in 2004 applied for
24
naturalization through the United States Department of Homeland Security’s Citizenship
25
and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). (Id.) Tesfay requested a copy of his birth
26
certificate from Eritrea in December 2008. (Id.) Tesfay was naturalized on August 14,
1
2009, but he did not receive a copy of his Eritrea birth certificate until January 2010. (Id.)
2
Therefore, during the application process, Tesfay relied on the documents he obtained from
3
the Sudanese Interior Minister, as it was the only documentation Tesfay possessed to
4
establish his identity and place of birth. (Id.) Accordingly, the date of birth recorded on
5
Tesfay’s Certificate of Naturalization is October 1, 1955, and not January 12, 1948, which
6
is the date reflected in Tesfay’s Eritrean birth certificate. (Id.)
7
Shortly after receiving a copy of his Eritrean birth certificate, Tesfay sought to
8
legally change the birth date on his United States identification documents to January 12,
9
1948. (Id.) Tesfay did not file an Application for a Replacement Naturalization (“Form
10
N-565”) with USCIS or otherwise communicate to USCIS that the date of birth on his
11
Certificate of Naturalization was incorrect. (Pl.’s Reply to Resp. of a Mot. (Doc. #21) at 2.)
12
Rather, Tesfay alleges an agency other than USCIS informed him that he needed to obtain
13
a court order to change the date of birth on his identification documents.1 (Id.)
14
Accordingly, Tesfay filed a Petition to Amend his Birth Certificate in the Eighth Judicial
15
District Court of Clark County, Nevada. (Compl. (Doc. #1) at 2.) The state court granted
16
Tesfay an Order to Amend, finding that Tesfay’s “true birth date is January 12, 1948.” (Id.
17
at 2-3; Ex. E.) After receiving the order, Tesfay attempted to correct the birth date on his
18
Certificate of Naturalization, but discovered he needed a federal court order to change the
19
date of birth on his Certificate of Naturalization. (Id. at 3.)
Therefore, Tesfay filed a Petition with this Court requesting an order amending
20
21
his Certificate of Naturalization. (Id. at 1.) Respondents thereafter filed a Notice advising
22
the Court that 8 C.F.R. § 334.16, the regulation Tesfay argues gives this Court jurisdiction,
23
had been repealed since Tesfay filed his Petition. (Notice of Supplemental Authority &
24
25
26
1
It is not clear whether an employee of the United States Postal Service or the Department of
Motor Vehicles informed Tesfay that he needed a court order. It is clear, however, that Tesfay did not
obtain this information from USCIS.
2
1
Briefing Schedule (Doc. #10) at 2-6.) Respondents also requested a briefing schedule for
2
dispositive motions. (Id. at 6.) The Magistrate Judge held a hearing at which both parties
3
agreed the record did not need to be supplemented. (Mins. of Proceedings (Doc. #18).)
4
Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge issued a briefing schedule, under which the parties filed
5
the Motion, Response, and Reply now before the Court. (Id.)
6
II. DISCUSSION
7
At issue is whether this Court has jurisdiction to amend the date of birth on
8
Tesfay’s Certificate of Naturalization. Tesfay argues that this Court has jurisdiction under
9
8 C.F.R. § 334.16 to order USCIS to amend the date of birth on Tesfay’s Certificate of
10
Naturalization. Respondents contend that this Court should dismiss Tesfay’s Petition for
11
lack of subject matter jurisdiction because only a federal statute, not a federal regulation,
12
can confer jurisdiction on a district court. Respondents further argue that this Court can
13
review agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), but there is no
14
USCIS action to review here because Tesfay has failed to pursue any administrative
15
remedies. Furthermore, Respondents argue that Tesfay’s pleadings fail to state a claim as a
16
matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). In his reply, Tesfay maintains
17
that § 334.16 is a valid basis for jurisdiction as other district courts have relied on § 334.16
18
to amend naturalization certificates that USCIS issued after 1991. Tesfay further replies
19
that he is not required to exhaust administrative remedies under the APA because doing so
20
would be futile under the governing regulations.
21
A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction Under 8 C.F.R. § 334.16
22
A court must dismiss an action if it determines at any time that it lacks subject
23
matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). “A party invoking the federal court’s
24
jurisdiction has the burden of proving the actual existence of subject matter jurisdiction.”
25
Thompson v. McCombe, 99 F.3d 352, 353 (9th Cir. 1996). The party challenging subject
26
matter jurisdiction may assert a facial or a factual jurisdictional attack. Safe Air for
3
1
Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004). In a facial attack, like the one
2
here, the “challenger asserts that the allegations contained in [the] complaint are insufficient
3
on their face to invoke federal jurisdiction.” Id.
4
Only the Constitution and Congress can confer subject matter jurisdiction on a
5
federal court. Opera Plaza Residential Parcel Homeowners Ass’n v. Hoang, 376 F.3d 831,
6
837 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Lanza v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 917, 930 (9th Cir. 2004)
7
(explaining that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and “possess only that
8
power authorized by Constitution and [Congress]”) (quotation omitted). The executive or
9
its administrative agencies do not have the authority to confer jurisdiction on the courts.
10
See Hoang, 376 F.3d at 837 (holding that a “regulation promulgated by an administrative
11
agency such as the FCC cannot by itself, in the absence of congressional authorization,
12
confer subject matter jurisdiction on federal courts”). Thus, to establish federal jurisdiction
13
in the absence of constitutional authority, a party must rely on a federal statute. Id.
14
Prior to 1990, Congress granted courts the statutory authority to review petitions
15
for naturalization and to naturalize persons as citizens of the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1421
16
(1990). Through the Immigration Act of 1990 (“IMMACT”), Congress transferred all
17
statutory authority to naturalize persons as citizens from the judiciary to the Attorney
18
General. Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-649, § 401, 104 Stat. 4978 (1990)
19
(codified at 8 U.S.C § 1421(a)). Accordingly, IMMACT eliminated the judiciary’s
20
naturalization authority present under the preceding naturalization system. Administrative
21
Naturalization, 56 Fed. Reg. 50475-01, 50475 (Oct. 7, 1991). Under the new system,
22
Congress vested in the Attorney General the sole authority to review applications for
23
citizenship and to issue certificates of naturalization. Id. Congress also authorized the
24
Attorney General to review pre-IMMACT, judicially ordered naturalizations. See
25
Immigration Act of 1990, § 407 (codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1451(h)) (“Nothing contained in
26
this section shall be regarded as limiting, denying, or restricting the power of the Attorney
4
1
2
General to correct, reopen, alter, modify, or vacate an order naturalizing the person.”).
In response to IMMACT, the former Immigration and Naturalization Service
3
(“INS”), now USCIS, updated its regulations to codify IMMACT’s transfer of
4
naturalization authority from the judiciary to the executive. Administrative Naturalization,
5
56 Fed. Reg. at 50475. Specifically, INS updated all regulations that referenced petitions
6
for naturalization because “IMMACT specifically [provided] that no new petitions for
7
naturalization may be filed under the judicial naturalization system after October 1, 1991.”
8
Id. at 50475, 50478. INS also re-wrote 8 C.F.R. § 334.16 “to eliminate the concept of
9
[judicial] petitioning used under the preceding” naturalization system. Id. at 50478.
10
However, the amended version of § 334.16 maintained the courts’ ability to review and
11
amend petitions for naturalization if the petition was still pending or if the court had
12
previously taken final action on the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 334.16(a)-(b); see also Matter of
13
Shrewsbury, 77 F.3d 490, 1996 WL 64988, at *1 (9th Cir. Feb. 12, 1996) (unpublished)
14
(recognizing that courts had jurisdiction to amend pre-1991 naturalization orders).
15
In 2011, USCIS repealed § 334.16 as obsolete and expired. See Immigration
16
Benefits Business Transformation, 76 Fed. Reg. 53764, 53768-69 (Aug. 29, 2011)
17
(effective Nov. 28, 2011). USCIS explained that § 334.16 was obsolete because it pertained
18
to petitions for naturalization filed before IMMACT’s effective date. Id. at 53769. USCIS
19
concluded those petitions were under the courts’ jurisdiction only until the IMMACT’s
20
effective date of October 1, 1991. Id.
21
Here, Tesfay bears the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction. Tesfay
22
relies on § 334.16 to establish such jurisdiction. However, under IMMACT, Congress
23
shifted the statutory authority to naturalize persons as citizens from the courts to the
24
executive. Thus, although § 334.16 permitted courts to review and amend petitions for
25
naturalization filed before IMMACT’s effective date, it could not grant courts jurisdiction
26
to amend post-IMMACT certificates of naturalization. USCIS issued Tesfay his Certificate
5
1
of Naturalization in 2009, after IMMACT’s transfer of jurisdiction over naturalization from
2
the judiciary to the executive. Consequently, § 334.16 does not provide this Court with
3
subject matter jurisdiction to amend Tesfay’s Certificate of Naturalization.
4
B. Subject Matter Jurisdiction Under the APA
5
Respondents argue this Court also lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the
6
APA because Tesfay has failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Respondents argue
7
Tesfay was required to first petition USCIS to correct his Certificate of Naturalization and
8
his failure to do so means there is nothing for this Court to review under the APA. Tesfay
9
replies that he was not required to pursue administrative remedies with USCIS because
10
pursuing such remedies would be futile.
11
Although the parties agree the Court has jurisdiction to review USCIS’s actions
12
under the APA, federal courts have a continuing and “independent obligation to determine
13
whether subject matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any
14
party.” Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). There is no judicial review of
15
agency actions in immigration proceedings under the APA. See Ardestani v. I.N.S., 502
16
U.S. 129, 133 (1991) (stating that “Congress intended the provisions of the Immigration and
17
Nationality Act . . . to supplant the APA in immigration proceedings” and thus,
18
“immigration proceedings . . . are not governed by the APA”); see also Moreno v. Bureau
19
of Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 185 F. App’x 688, 689 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that
20
the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the APA to order Immigration
21
Services to grant the petitioner’s application for a replacement alien registration card
22
because the “Supreme Court has made it clear that the APA does not apply to immigration
23
proceedings”). Accordingly, because “a petition to amend an immigration document falls
24
within the context of an immigration proceeding,” judicial review of such a petition is not
25
proper under the APA. Malineni v. USCIS, 2013 WL 466204, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 7,
26
2013).
6
1
Here, Tesfay cannot rely on the APA to establish subject matter jurisdiction
2
because the APA does not apply to immigration proceedings and therefore, judicial review
3
of agency action in the immigration context is improper under the APA. The APA does not
4
afford this Court with the power to amend the birth date on Tesfay’s Certificate of
5
Naturalization and Tesfay therefore has not met his burden of demonstrating this Court’s
6
subject matter jurisdiction.
7
III. CONCLUSION
8
9
10
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner Yetbarek Yohannes Tesfay’s
Motion for Order Amending Naturalization Certificate (Doc. #19) is hereby DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner Yetbarek Yohannes Tesfay’s
11
Petition to Amend Certificate of Naturalization (Doc. #1) is hereby DISMISSED for lack of
12
subject matter jurisdiction.
13
14
15
16
DATED: April 26, 2013
_______________________________
PHILIP M. PRO
United States District Judge
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?