Kapa v. U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service et al
Filing
6
ORDER DISMISSING CASE without prejudice; Petitioners Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees and Affidavit (Doc. No. 1) is GRANTED; Petitioners Motion for Leave to File Pleading (Doc. No. 5) is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 10/2/17. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(clc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:17-cv-00415-FDW
MLU KAPA,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service,
)
et al.,
)
Respondents.
)
__________________________________________)
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court upon initial review of Mlu Kapa’s pro se pleading,
filed July 6, 2017, which this Court construes as a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). (Doc. No. 2.) Kapa filed this action in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, which transferred it to this Court on July 17, 2017. Also
before the Court are Kapa’s Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Affidavit
(“IFP Application”) (Doc. No. 1) and Motion for Leave to File Pleading (Doc. No. 5).
I.
BACKGROUND
According to Kapa’s Petition, he currently is detained in the Buffalo Federal Detention
Facility in Batavia, New York; he does not state the reason for his detention. A review of this
Court’s criminal case records shows Kapa has not been indicted on, or convicted of, a federal
crime in the Western District of North Carolina. According to the North Carolina Department of
Public Safety records,1 Kapa served an active sentence for sex offense convictions in
See N.C. Dep’t of Public Safety Offender Public Info., http://webapps6.doc.state.nc.us/opi/offendersearch.do
?method=view
1
1
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. He was released from state prison on June 22, 2016. At
some point thereafter, he was taken into federal custody.
As part of the instant Petition, Kapa has included an N-400 Application for Naturalization
dated June 7, 2017. (N-400 App., Doc. No. 2 at 12-21.) According to the Application, Kapa is a
native of Vietnam. (Doc. No. 2 at 13.) He became a permanent resident of this country on
August 30, 2008, and has resided in Charlotte, North Carolina, since 2005. (Doc. No. 2 at 13,
14.) His N-400 Application indicates that “removal, exclusion, rescission, or deportation
proceedings” are pending against him and that he has been “ordered to be removed, excluded, or
deported from the United States.” (Doc. No. 2 at 20.)
Kapa’s pleading is extremely difficult to understand, but it is clear he is seeking to
become a naturalized citizen to avoid deportation from this country. What is not clear is whether
he is asking the Court to naturalize him (Pet. 9, Doc. No. 2 (“Plaintiff upon the filing seeks the
Court process the Application of the (illegible) Plaintiff shall become naturalized U.S. citizen.”)),
or is seeking judicial review of the naturalization proceedings (Pet. 8 (“Plaintiff request the
Defendant to process the . . . Application for Naturalization[.]”)). He names the United States
Immigration & Naturalization Service, United States Attorney General Jefferson B. Sessions, III,
and the United States Department of Justice’s Office of Immigration Litigation - Civil Division
as Respondents in this action.
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Federal courts are “courts of limited jurisdiction.” Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v.
Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374 (1978). They possess only the power authorized by Article III of the
United States Constitution and statutes enacted by Congress pursuant thereto. See Bender v.
Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541–42 (1986). “If the court determines at any time
2
that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(h)(3).
Here, the Court looks merely to the sufficiency of Kapa’s pleading to determine if he has
alleged sufficient facts to indicate that the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action.
See Wayside Church v. Van Buren Cty., 847 F.3d 812, 816 (6th Cir. 2017) (citing Gentek Bldg.
Prods., Inc. v. Sherwin–Williams Co., 491 F.3d 320, 330 (6th Cir. 2007)). The Court takes the
allegations in the pleading as true. See Wayside Church, 847 F.3d at 816 (citation omitted).
III.
DISCUSSION
Prior to 1990, the authority to naturalize individuals seeking United States citizenship
was vested in the Judiciary. See 8 U.S.C. § 1421 (1988) (“Exclusive jurisdiction to naturalize
persons as citizens of the United States is conferred upon . . . District courts of the United
States[.]”). In 1990, however, Congress conferred upon the Attorney General, “sole authority to
naturalize persons as citizens of the United States . . . .” Immigration Act of 1990, Pub.L. No.
101–649, § 401(a), 104 Stat. 4978, 5038 (1990) (codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1421(a)). Moreover, the
Immigration Act provides, in relevant part, that:
no person shall be naturalized against whom there is outstanding a final finding of
deportability pursuant to a warrant of arrest issued under the provisions of this
chapter or any other Act; and no application for naturalization shall be considered
by the Attorney General if there is pending against the applicant a removal
proceeding pursuant to a warrant of arrest issued under the provisions of this
chapter or any other Act[.]
8 U.S.C. § 1429. As noted, Kapa’s Application indicates both that “removal, exclusion,
rescission, or deportation proceedings” are pending against him and that he has been “ordered to
be removed, excluded, or deported from the United States.” (Doc. No. 2 at 20.) Thus, to the
extent Kapa is asking the Court to process his N-400 Application, declare him a naturalized
3
citizen, and order his release from federal custody, the Court does not have the authority to do so.
See id. Nor does the Court have the authority to order the Attorney General to naturalize Kapa.
See § 1429.
The Court does retain authority to review certain administrative naturalization decisions
in limited circumstances, such as when the United States Citizens and Immigration Service
(“USCIS”)2 fails to render a decision on an application for naturalization within the statutory
timeframe, see 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), or when an application for naturalization has been denied by
USCIS and the applicant has exhausted all administrative remedies, see 8 U.S.C.A. § 1421(c); 8
C.F.R. § 336.9(b). Kapa, however, has failed to allege sufficient facts indicating that the Court
has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action under either § 1421(c) or § 1447(b).
At a minimum, the Court’s jurisdiction depends upon USCIS either denying an
application for naturalization, § 1421(c), or failing to render a decision on an application within
120-days of interviewing the applicant, see §§ 1446, 1447(b); 8 C.F.R. §§ 312.5(b), 335.2(a)-(b),
335.3. It should go without saying that the USCIS cannot do either unless an application has
been filed, and it is not clear from Kapa’s Petition that he has filed an N-400 Application directly
with USCIS. Assuming that he has, Kapa does not state whether the application was denied, or
if, and when, he was interviewed about his application. Consequently, he has failed to plead
sufficient facts indicating that the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action. See
Wayside Church, 847 F.3d at 816.
The Court will dismiss the habeas Petition without prejudice so that Petitioner may file a
2
The United States Citizens and Immigration Service is the successor agency to the Immigration and Naturalization
Service.
4
properly pleaded habeas petition in the future. Kapa’s IFP Application shall be granted, but his
Motion for Leave to File Pleading shall be denied, as it is no more intelligible than the Petition.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc.
No. 2) is DISMISSED without prejudice;
2. Petitioner’s Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees and Affidavit (Doc.
No. 1) is GRANTED;
3. Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to File Pleading (Doc. No. 5) is DENIED.
Signed: October 2, 2017
5
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?