Khan v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, 1:15-cv-23406

Background

Plaintiff Ikram Ul Haq Khan, a Pakistani-born lawful permanent resident, applied for naturalization in 2006; USCIS delayed adjudication and later denied his application after interviews in 2013 and 2014.
Khan alleges USCIS processed his application under CARRP (Controlled Application Review and Resolution Program), an internal national-security screening track that he says lacks statutory or regulatory basis and biases adjudication toward delay or denial.
USCIS denied Khan’s N-400 initially in 2013 for failing to show continuous residence and good moral character, relying on Pakistani reports and media; USCIS affirmed the denial in 2015 after administrative appeal.
Khan filed this action seeking (1) a de novo hearing and grant of naturalization under 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) (Count I) and (2) declaratory and injunctive relief challenging CARRP and related procedures (Counts II–VII).
The Defendants moved to dismiss Counts II–VII for lack of standing and for failure to state a claim; at hearing the court granted dismissal of Counts II–VII without prejudice.
The court held Khan lacks standing to obtain prospective declaratory or injunctive relief about CARRP because the alleged injury is past (the denial), there is no substantial likelihood of future injury, and his remedy under § 1421(c) is a de novo adjudication rather than prospective relief against agency procedures.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to seek declaratory/injunctive relief challenging CARRP (Counts II–VII)	Khan contends CARRP injured his interest in citizenship and that he seeks relief to prevent future application of CARRP to his case	Defendants argue Khan has no real and immediate threat of future injury and thus lacks standing for prospective relief	Dismissed: Khan lacks standing because his injury is past, no substantial likelihood CARRP will harm him again, and de novo review under § 1421(c) already remedies his claim
Whether court should decide claims under APA, Due Process, INA, estoppel, and notice-and-comment	Khan argues CARRP is unlawful and that declaratory/injunctive relief is appropriate to remedy procedural violations	Defendants assert procedural challenges seek prospective relief and are not redressable given de novo statutory review; also moved under Rule 12(b)(6)	Not reached on merits: court dismissed these counts on standing grounds without addressing 12(b)(6) arguments
Scope of § 1421(c) remedy vs. prospective injunctive relief	Khan seeks re-adjudication without CARRP and other prospective relief	Defendants note § 1421(c) provides de novo district-court review, not remand with instructions, and a favorable ruling would obviate procedural claims	Court emphasized § 1421(c) affords de novo factfinding and is the appropriate remedy; declaratory/injunctive relief unnecessary to resolve Khan’s individual claim
Redressability of requested prospective relief	Khan sought an order returning matter to USCIS for re-adjudication without CARRP	Defendants argued such relief is speculative and inconsistent with § 1421(c) process	Court found requested prospective relief not redressable and speculative; dismissal affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires concrete, particularized, and imminent injury and redressability)
Lyons v. City of Los Angeles, 461 U.S. 95 (1983) (injunctive relief requires real and immediate threat of future injury)
Carver Middle Sch. Gay–Straight All. v. Sch. Bd., 842 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2016) (no present interest in declaratory relief where statutory remedy provides de novo review)
Nicklaw v. Citimortgage, Inc., 839 F.3d 998 (11th Cir. 2016) (Article III standing principles and limits on judicial power)
Saliba v. Attorney General, 828 F.3d 182 (3d Cir. 2016) (§ 1421(c) allows de novo district-court review not limited to the administrative record)
United States v. Hovsepian, 359 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2004) (district court has final, nondeferential authority on naturalization claims)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standards for plausibility)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must state plausible claim to survive dismissal)