Aljabri v. Holder
745 F.3d 816
7th Cir.2014Background
- Aljabri, a lawful permanent resident by marriage, filed a naturalization application in Feb 2003 and was interviewed in July 2003; USCIS took no final action for ~9 years.
- While his application was pending, Aljabri was convicted (2007) of wire fraud and structuring; he was later ordered removed in absentia after missing an immigration hearing.
- In Feb 2011 Aljabri sued pro se in district court seeking a determination of his naturalization application (or declaration of citizenship) under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b).
- The district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction relying on 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii); it denied relief and Aljabri appealed.
- After appeal was docketed, USCIS denied Aljabri’s application (May 3, 2012) citing the final removal order, loss of LPR status, and lack of good moral character; the government argued the appeal was moot because USCIS acted.
- The Seventh Circuit held § 1252 did not apply to naturalization (different subchapter) and that § 1447(b) gives district courts exclusive jurisdiction to "determine the matter or remand" once suit is filed, so USCIS lacked power to act and the case was not moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court had jurisdiction over naturalization claim after 120 days under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) | § 1447(b) gives district courts jurisdiction to decide or remand; Aljabri properly invoked it | District court previously dismissed under § 1252; Government did not defend that on appeal | Court: § 1447(b) applies and grants district court jurisdiction; dismissal was erroneous |
| Whether § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars jurisdiction | N/A (Aljabri did not rely on § 1252) | § 1252 deprives courts of review of discretionary immigration actions | Court: § 1252 applies only to subchapter II; naturalization statute is in subchapter III, so § 1252 is inapplicable |
| Whether § 1429 (bar on naturalization during removal/final deportability) divests jurisdiction | § 1429 affects relief but not subject-matter jurisdiction | Govt: outstanding removal order prevents naturalization and may limit court action | Court: § 1429 is non-jurisdictional; court can stay, remand, or decide the application without exceeding jurisdiction |
| Whether USCIS action after suit moots the case (concurrent agency/court jurisdiction) | After § 1447(b) suit, district court has exclusive jurisdiction; agency cannot act unless matter remanded | USCIS retained concurrent jurisdiction and its later denial moots the case | Court: District court has exclusive jurisdiction once § 1447(b) is invoked; USCIS action was ineffective and case is not moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. City of Chicago, 137 F.3d 474 (7th Cir. 1998) (subject-matter jurisdiction must be considered first)
- Hovsepian v. Napolitano, 359 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2004) (district court may exclusively decide naturalization claim under § 1447(b))
- Bustamante v. Napolitano, 582 F.3d 403 (2d Cir. 2009) (§ 1447(b) grants district court power to determine or remand; agency cannot act concurrently)
- Etape v. Chertoff, 497 F.3d 379 (4th Cir. 2007) (same interpretation of § 1447(b))
- Brock v. Pierce County, 476 U.S. 253 (1986) (statutory silence about consequences of agency delay does not always divest courts; distinguished here because § 1447(b) prescribes consequences)
- Klene v. Napolitano, 697 F.3d 666 (7th Cir. 2012) (statute barring consideration of applications in certain circumstances affects relief, not jurisdiction)