Kwok Sze v. Johnson, 172 F. Supp. 3d 112

Background

Plaintiff Kwok Sze, a naturalized U.S. citizen incarcerated in New York, sought to renounce U.S. citizenship under 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a)(6) (renunciation on U.S. soil when U.S. is "in a state of war").
Plaintiff sent written requests (2011 and 2014) to DOJ and DHS; USCIS replied it would not process renunciation outside its established procedures and would not travel to prisons or conduct interviews by phone/video.
USCIS informed Plaintiff he could attend an in-person interview at a designated USCIS office after release; Plaintiff administratively appealed but was told no appeal was available.
Plaintiff filed suit pro se under the Mandamus Act, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and the Fifth Amendment, and also named New York corrections commissioner Anthony Annucci; he sought declaration of renunciation or orders compelling USCIS/NYSDC to facilitate an in-person interview.
DHS moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1), (6), and (7); the Court granted defendants’ motion, dismissed APA, mandamus, and due-process claims, found mandamus claims moot, and dismissed claims against Annucci for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mandamus jurisdiction to compel issuance of Certificate of Loss of Nationality	Sze claims USCIS wrongly applied the law and must be compelled to process renunciation and issue a certificate	Mandamus relief is unavailable because USCIS already performed its ministerial duty (responded) and issuance of certificate is discretionary	Dismissed as moot — plaintiff received all mandamus relief to which he was entitled; mandamus inappropriate for discretionary decisions
APA challenge to USCIS policy refusing prison interviews / requiring in-person interview at USCIS office	Sze contends policy is arbitrary, capricious, and blocks his ability to renounce while incarcerated; alternative methods (prison interview, phone/video) are reasonable	USCIS has statutory discretion to prescribe form, officer, and place; in-person interview requirement is a reasonable method to assess voluntariness and competence	APA claim fails — agency action falls within discretion and was not arbitrary or capricious
Procedural due process — right to renounce while incarcerated	Sze asserts denial of ability to exercise statutory renunciation is a deprivation without due process	Government argues no protected liberty/property interest; right to abandon citizenship is statutory/regulatory, not a constitutional right to renounce while incarcerated	Due process claim fails — no constitutional right to renounce during incarceration and statute contains no mandatory entitlement requiring accommodation
Personal jurisdiction over New York official (Annucci)	Plaintiff served Annucci and sought default judgment for failure to appear	Defendants argue no D.C. contacts; suit against state official in official capacity is suit against New York, beyond D.C. long-arm statute; no basis for jurisdiction	Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Annucci; denied default judgment and dismissed claims against him

Key Cases Cited

Kerr v. United States, 426 U.S. 394 (mandamus is an extraordinary remedy)
Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602 (mandamus only to compel clear nondiscretionary duty)
Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (constitutional right to remain a citizen unless voluntarily relinquished)
Mitsugi Nishikawa v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 129 (Congress may regulate renunciation procedures)
Schnitzler v. United States, 761 F.3d 33 (APA may be appropriate vehicle; did not alter mandamus principles here)
Sluss v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 899 F. Supp. 2d 37 (refusal to grant mandamus for incarcerated renunciants; in-person interview requirement reasonable)
Turner v. Beers, 5 F. Supp. 3d 115 (statutory framework and agency discretion over renunciation procedure)