Aleme v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
3:19-mc-00101
| D. Or. | Dec 27, 2019Background
- Petitioner Tesfaye Aleme is an Ethiopian native who was admitted to the U.S. as a refugee in 1988 and was naturalized in 1996.
- On his 1988 G-325C refugee application he listed a birthdate of September 12, 1958; his naturalization certificate (1996) lists April 12, 1958.
- In 2018 Aleme filed Form N-565 seeking to change his certificate to April 12, 1950, explaining an eight-year Ethiopian/Gregorian calendar difference.
- USCIS replied that Aleme needed a district court order to change the certificate because his naturalization was by a district court prior to IMMACT 90; USCIS later denied the application and outlined appeal options Aleme did not pursue.
- Aleme then asked the federal district court to order USCIS to amend his Certificate of Naturalization; the court considered whether it had subject-matter jurisdiction to grant that relief and denied the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Court's subject-matter jurisdiction to order amendment of a naturalization certificate | Aleme asked the court to order USCIS to correct his DOB on the certificate (calendar discrepancy) | USCIS: IMMACT 90 vested exclusive naturalization authority in the executive, so courts lack post-1991 jurisdiction to amend certificates | Court: No subject-matter jurisdiction to order amendment; authority lies with the executive under IMMACT 90 |
| Whether 8 C.F.R. § 338.5 supplies jurisdiction to federal courts | Aleme implied administrative rules permitting correction support judicial relief | USCIS: § 338.5 permits agency corrections but does not confer judicial jurisdiction | Court: § 338.5 does not create subject-matter jurisdiction; administrative regulation cannot confer jurisdiction on courts |
| Administrative remedies / appeal requirement | Aleme sought judicial relief after USCIS request for more evidence and subsequent denial | USCIS noted appeal rights and that Aleme had not pursued administrative appeal | Court noted administrative route available and that Aleme had not exhausted USCIS appeal options, but primary basis for denial was lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (federal courts have only the jurisdiction authorized by Constitution and statute)
- Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006) (courts have an independent obligation to determine subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574 (1999) (jurisdictional limits are independent of the parties' positions)
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U.S. 368 (1981) (courts must ensure they have subject-matter jurisdiction before reaching merits)
- Gorbach v. Reno, 219 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2000) (IMMACT 90 shifted naturalization authority from courts to INS/agency)
- Yu-Ling Teng v. Dist. Dir., U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 820 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2016) (8 C.F.R. § 338.5 does not create subject-matter jurisdiction)