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)
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
In re Mehrdad Emadzadeh,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
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
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).”
Jahan v. Houghton, 2022 WL 50462, at *3
Courts also had authority to “correct, reopen,
alter, modify, or vacate [a] judgment or decree naturalizing such
Id. (alteration original) (quoting Teng v. U.S. Dist.
Dir., USCIS, 820 F.3d 1106, 1109 (9th Cir. 2016)).
Immigration Act of 1990 transferred such authority to the Executive
Branch, see id., Petitioner was naturalized before this court in
(ECF No. 2 at 16.)
As a result, the court retains
the authority to grant the relief requested by Petitioner.
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
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.”).
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]
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
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.)
Moreover, based on the record, the
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
See, e.g., In re Cheng, 2009 WL 426125, at *2 (N.D.
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
court served a copy of the petition on the United States Attorney’s
(5/10/22 Minute Order.)
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.
ECF No. 2 at 1-2.)
Accordingly, Petitioner’s  motion is granted.
certificate to reflect a birth date of April 5, 1957.
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.
/s/ Kiyo A. Matsumoto_______
Hon. Kiyo A. Matsumoto
United States District Judge
Eastern District of New York
Brooklyn, New York
August 1, 2022
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?