896 F.3d 475
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- James Kaufman, a native-born U.S. citizen with no other nationality, sought to renounce U.S. citizenship beginning in 2004 while incarcerated for a 1997 conviction; he pursued renunciation under the INA’s domestic-renunciation provision, 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a)(6).
- USCIS (after jurisdictional litigation establishing USCIS administers domestic renunciations) interviewed Kaufman, warned that renunciation would render him stateless and subject to detention/removal, and obtained his confirmation that he wished to proceed.
- Kaufman’s release in 2013 was subject to mandatory state supervision that restricted travel; he had savings and research but no secured foreign admission or travel documents.
- A USCIS field office (Tritten Letter) denied his renunciation, finding he lacked the requisite “intention” because he had no credible plan to leave the U.S. and thus would continue to exercise the citizen right of residency.
- Kaufman sued under the APA; the district court granted summary judgment for USCIS. On appeal, the D.C. Circuit reviewed whether USCIS lawfully interpreted the INA’s “intention” requirement and whether agency deference applied.
- The court held the Tritten Letter’s interpretation was impermissible, concluded Chevron deference was not warranted for that adjudication, and reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ripeness of challenge to USCIS denial | Kaufman: dispute raises pure legal question about statutory meaning; ripe for review | USCIS: case is not ripe because Kaufman can try foreign renunciation after supervision ends | Court: claim is ripe; issue is fit and hardship favors review |
| Chevron deference to Tritten Letter | Kaufman: agency letter is novel, not a general rule; no Chevron | USCIS: its interpretation in field adjudication merits Chevron deference | Court: Chevron not warranted (informal, not HQ policy, multiple agencies administer §1481) |
| Meaning of §1481(a)’s “intention” element | Kaufman: “intention” = subjective will/determination to relinquish citizenship | USCIS: requires subjective intent plus an objectively credible plan to leave U.S. (esp. for domestic renunciation) | Court: statutory text/structure and precedent reject USCIS’s added departure/plan requirement; intention is primarily subjective and USCIS’s reading impermissible |
| Application to Kaufman’s denial | Kaufman: he understood consequences and declared desire to renounce despite statelessness; denial was based on speculative future actions | USCIS: his supervision and lack of exit plan showed he intended to continue exercising residency rights | Court: remanded — agency decision vacated; agency must reconsider under correct legal standard (no categorical requirement of credible departure plan) |
Key Cases Cited
- Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (framework for agency deference to statutory interpretations)
- Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006) (limits on Chevron when agency lacks delegated rulemaking authority)
- United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001) (Skidmore v. Swift power-to-persuade framework for informal agency adjudications)
- Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944) (weight accorded agency interpretations based on persuasiveness)
- Barnhart v. Walton, 535 U.S. 212 (2002) (factors for assessing whether agency adjudication warrants deference)
- Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) (limits on detention and removal in immigration contexts; cited for detention/removal consequences)
- Lozada Colon v. Department of State, 170 F.3d 191 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (distinguished case where returning to U.S. undermined renunciant’s claimed intent)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. EPA, 446 F.3d 140 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (agency cannot rewrite statutory text to avoid undesirable consequences)