170 F. Supp. 3d 71
D.D.C.2016Background
- Kaufman, a Wisconsin resident, seeks to renounce U.S. citizenship under 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a)(6) via APA and mandamus; mandamus claim dismissed, APA claim remains.
- USCIS issued a final decision on March 21, 2014 denying renunciation, finding no credible plan to sever ties with the United States.
- Kaufman had a criminal sentence for first-degree sexual assault of a minor; his renunciation requests were held in abeyance pending an in-person interview.
- He remained under Wisconsin community supervision from May 2013 to January 2016 with conditions including employment, reporting to a supervising officer, and travel restrictions.
- USCIS found Kaufman’s statements about departure plans speculative and not supported by credible evidence, and that his plan to depart was incompatible with supervision.
- The court grants Defendants’ summary judgment motion and denies Kaufman’s, concluding the USCIS decision was reasonable and supported by the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| APA review standard applicability | Kaufman argues USCIS decision inconsistent with the record and law. | USCIS acted within its authority and properly applied APA review standards. | USCIS action affirmed; summary judgment for USCIS is granted. |
| Credible plan to renounce | Renunciation supported by his stated plans to leave and establish foreign residence. | Plans were speculative and lacking credible basis in fact. | USCIS reasonably found lack of credible plan to sever U.S. ties. |
| Effect of state supervision on renunciation | Instructions by Wisconsin supervision do not bar renunciation. | Supervision requirements fundamentally undercut ability to depart and renounce. | Agency reasonably emphasized supervision as incompatible with immediate departure. |
| Evidence supporting decision | Record supports Kaufman’s intent to renounce. | Record shows no credible evidence supporting his ability to leave and establish new status. | Record supports USCIS’s conclusion; decision not arbitrary or capricious. |
Key Cases Cited
- Envtl. Def. Fund, Inc. v. Costle, 657 F.2d 275 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (highly deferential APA review; agency actions presumed valid)
- Citizens for Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (U.S. 1971) (cannot substitute court judgment for agency; scope of authority)
- Fulbright v. McHugh, 67 F. Supp. 3d 81 (D.D.C. 2014) (factors for APA review in agency decisions)
- Fund for Animals v. Babbitt, 903 F. Supp. 96 (D.D.C. 1995) (consideration of relevant factors in agency action)
- Richards v. INS, 554 F.2d 1173 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (statutory and record-based review under APA)
- Coe v. McHugh, 968 F. Supp. 2d 237 (D.D.C. 2013) (summary judgment in APA review context; not using Rule 56(a))