Khuc v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
5:13-cv-04377
N.D. Cal.Mar 3, 2015Background
- Khuc entered the U.S. as a refugee in 1986 and became a lawful permanent resident under 8 U.S.C. § 1159 in 1988.
- An immigration judge ordered him removed in 1999 due to multiple arrests and convictions; that removal order rescinded his LPR status and he lived under an order of supervision.
- Khuc applied to readjust status (I-485) in 2009; USCIS denied adjustment as inadmissible because of his convictions and removal order.
- USCIS later granted an I-602 waiver under § 1159 in August 2010, which USCIS treated as re-granting LPR status.
- Khuc filed an N-400 for naturalization in May 2011; USCIS denied it, concluding he was not "lawfully admitted for permanent residence" because Robleto-Pastora prohibits re-adjustment under § 1159 where the applicant previously adjusted under § 1159.
- Khuc sued under 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c); the magistrate judge granted the government's summary judgment motion, holding Khuc remains inadmissible and thus ineligible to naturalize.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Khuc is "lawfully admitted for permanent residence" for naturalization | Khuc contends USCIS wrongly denied his N-400 after granting the §1159 waiver/readjustment | USCIS argues Robleto‑Pastora bars re‑adjustment under §1159 when applicant previously adjusted under §1159, so Khuc is inadmissible | Court held Khuc is not "lawfully admitted"; USCIS denial proper |
| Whether USCIS permissibly relied on the prior removal and criminal history to deny naturalization | Khuc disputes the effect of prior removal and subsequent waiver on eligibility | USCIS maintains prior adjustment, loss of status, and judicial precedent make him ineligible despite waiver | Court accepted USCIS position; waiver could not cure inadmissibility for naturalization |
| Whether summary judgment is appropriate where statutory bar exists | Khuc appeared pro se and contested at hearing but did not oppose papers | USCIS sought summary judgment based on legal bar to naturalization | Court held statutory bar obviated need for further factfinding; granted summary judgment |
| Burden of proof for naturalization eligibility | Khuc bears burden to show eligibility in all respects | USCIS argued absence of legal status means Khuc cannot meet burden | Court reiterated strict burden and denied relief to Khuc |
Key Cases Cited
- Robleto-Pastora v. Holder, 591 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2010) (holds a refugee who previously adjusted under §1159 cannot re‑adjust under §1159 via a §1159(c) waiver)
- Monet v. INS, 791 F.2d 752 (9th Cir. 1986) ("lawfully admitted" requires substantive entitlement, not mere procedural regularity)
- Segura v. Holder, 605 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2010) (extends Monet to situations where status was obtained by mistake rather than fraud)
- Berenyi v. Dist. Dir., Immigration & Naturalization Servs., 385 U.S. 630 (Sup. Ct. 1967) (applicant bears burden to show eligibility for naturalization in every respect)
- Fedorenko v. United States, 449 U.S. 490 (Sup. Ct. 1981) (requires strict compliance with prerequisites for citizenship)