Emadzadeh

Filing 3

ORDER granting 1 Motion to Amend/Correct/Supplement. For the reasons set forth in the attached memorandum and order, Petitioner's 1 motion is GRANTED. USCIS is HEREBY ORDERED to correct Petitioner's court-issued naturalization certifi cate to reflect a birth date of April 5, 1957.The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment accordingly, serve a copy of this Memorandum and Order and the judgment on Petitioner, note service on the docket, and close this case. The court will serve a copy of this order and the judgment on the United States Attorney's Office and direct that office to serve a copy of each on USCIS. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 8/1/2022. (Duhaime, Daniel)

Download PDF
Case 1:19-mc-01583-KAM Document 3 Filed 08/01/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 88 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------x In re Mehrdad Emadzadeh, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Petitioner. 19-MC-1583 (KAM) ------------------------------x KIYO A. MATSUMOTO, United States District Judge: Petitioner Mehrdad Emadzadeh, proceeding pro se, moves for an order directing U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to correct his date of birth listed on his naturalization certificate. Petitioner states that his correct date of birth is April 5, 1957, rather than April 4, 1957. No. 1-1 at 1.) (ECF No. 1 at 1; ECF The motion is GRANTED. “Until 1991, courts had [e]xclusive jurisdiction to naturalize persons as citizens of the United States pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1421(a).” (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 4, citation omitted). Jahan v. Houghton, 2022 WL 50462, at *3 2022) (alteration original; quotations and Courts also had authority to “correct, reopen, alter, modify, or vacate [a] judgment or decree naturalizing such person.” Id. (alteration original) (quoting Teng v. U.S. Dist. Dir., USCIS, 820 F.3d 1106, 1109 (9th Cir. 2016)). Although the Immigration Act of 1990 transferred such authority to the Executive Branch, see id., Petitioner was naturalized before this court in December 1989. (ECF No. 2 at 16.) As a result, the court retains the authority to grant the relief requested by Petitioner. See, Case 1:19-mc-01583-KAM Document 3 Filed 08/01/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 89 e.g., Collins v. USCIS, 820 F.3d 1096, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding that courts retain jurisdiction to correct naturalization certificates issued by the court prior to the enactment of the Immigration Act of 1990); Lai Dinh v. USCIS, 2021 WL 516803, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2021) (“Petitioner’s Petition is properly before this Court because the Eastern District of California originally issued Petitioner’s naturalization certificate prior to the enactment of the Immigration Act of 1990.”); Sea v. USCIS, 2015 WL 5092509, at *2 (D. Minn. Aug. 28, 2015) (“[S]ince [the petitioner’s] October 1991, naturalization this court certificate has was issued jurisdiction to prior amend to the certificate.”); Ampadu v. USCIS, 944 F. Supp. 2d 648, 653 (C.D. Ill. 2013) (“Several courts . . . have concluded that they have jurisdiction to amend naturalization orders issued by the courts before the Immigration Act of 1990 became effective.”). Turning to the merits, most courts “have allowed amendment where the petitioner has presented clear evidence of [his] true date of birth and there are no concerns that petitioner acted fraudulently in representing [his] date of birth in [his] naturalization petition.” Bazouzi v. Johnson, 2015 WL 1968004, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 1, 2015) (collecting cases); see also, e.g., Thumajaree v. USCIS, 2014 WL 1309343, at *3 (D. Ore. Mar. 30, 2014); In re Chehrazi, 2012 WL 3026537, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 24, 2012); Nguyen v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 2007 WL 2156649, at 2 Case 1:19-mc-01583-KAM Document 3 Filed 08/01/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 90 *4 (N.D.N.Y. July 25, 2007). The record includes clear evidence of Petitioner’s true date of birth. Specifically, a certified translation of Petitioner’s Iranian birth certificate lists his date of birth as April 5, 1957, rather than April 4, 1957. No. 2 at 30; see id. at 5.) court has no representing process. concerns his date that of (ECF Moreover, based on the record, the Petitioner birth acted during fraudulently the in naturalization To the contrary, it appears that the minor inaccuracy on Petitioner’s naturalization certificate arose from the process of converting Petitioner’s birth date from the Persian calendar to the Gregorian calendar. (See ECF No. 1 at 1.) Finally, the court notes that Petitioner did not name USCIS as a party to this action. Courts have granted similar motions, however, even where USCIS was not named and served as an adverse party. Cal. Feb. 20, See, e.g., In re Cheng, 2009 WL 426125, at *2 (N.D. 2009). In fact, USCIS’s correspondence with Petitioner suggests that the agency did not anticipate being an adverse party in this action. (ECF No. 1-2 at 2 (“Once you obtain the court order please forward a copy of this to us. update your Certificate of Naturalization.”).) We will then Nevertheless, the court served a copy of the petition on the United States Attorney’s Office and respond. provided the government (5/10/22 Minute Order.) 3 with an opportunity to The government’s response does Case 1:19-mc-01583-KAM Document 3 Filed 08/01/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 91 not object to granting the relief requested by Petitioner. (See ECF No. 2 at 1-2.) Accordingly, Petitioner’s [1] motion is granted. is HEREBY ORDERED to correct Petitioner’s USCIS naturalization certificate to reflect a birth date of April 5, 1957. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment accordingly, serve a copy of this order and the judgment on Petitioner, note service on the docket, and close this case. The court will serve a copy of this order and the judgment on the United States Attorney’s Office and will direct that Office to serve a copy of each on USCIS. SO ORDERED. /s/ Kiyo A. Matsumoto_______ Hon. Kiyo A. Matsumoto United States District Judge Eastern District of New York Dated: Brooklyn, New York August 1, 2022 4

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?