L. Xia v. Rex Tillerson
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13911
| D.C. Cir. | 2017Background
- Five former Chinese nationals (plaintiffs) received facially valid certificates of naturalization and U.S. passports; USCIS employee Robert Schofield later admitted illegally issuing many such certificates.
- USCIS administratively canceled the plaintiffs’ naturalization certificates and the State Department administratively revoked or refused to renew their passports; plaintiffs say they were never offered judicial denaturalization proceedings.
- Plaintiffs sued for declaratory and injunctive relief under the INA, the Due Process Clause, the APA, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983; defendants moved to dismiss; district court dismissed the amended complaint for failure to state a claim and on venue/exhaustion grounds.
- The D.C. Circuit held administrative cancellation of certificates and passports does not itself denaturalize a person (statutes provide cancellation of documents only), but section 1503 and the APA may provide judicial review/remedy.
- Court affirmed dismissal of claims insisting that denaturalization requires judicial process and affirmed dismissal of inadequately pleaded discrimination claims and that §1503 must be filed in the plaintiffs’ districts of residence.
- Court reversed dismissal insofar as the district court barred APA challenges and §1503 claims for failure to exhaust; remanded APA and §1503 claims (with suggestion to transfer to correct venues).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether administrative cancellation of certificates/passports suffices to denaturalize | Plaintiffs: they were U.S. citizens and entitled to judicial denaturalization proceedings (8 U.S.C. §1451) before loss of citizenship | Gov't: certificates were invalidly procured (tainted by Schofield) so plaintiffs were never citizens; administrative cancellation corrects that | Held: Administrative cancellations affect only documents, not citizenship; denaturalization requires judicial proceeding, so plaintiffs’ claim that they were denaturalized administratively fails |
| Whether INA provisions (e.g., §§1421, 1447(b), 1451) support plaintiffs’ procedural claims | Plaintiffs: INA and Due Process require judicial denaturalization and pre-deprivation process | Gov't: administrative statutes (§1453, §1504) suffice to revoke documents without judicial action | Held: §1421 and §1447(b) inapplicable; §1451 is the proper judicial route for denaturalization, and administrative routes cannot substitute for §1451 when the government seeks to revoke citizenship |
| Whether plaintiffs may obtain relief under the APA for arbitrary or unlawful administrative revocations | Plaintiffs: APA review is available because no other adequate remedy exists and exhaustion would be futile for passports | Gov't: plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies | Held: APA claims were plausibly pleaded; exhaustion not required here (no statute/rule compelled it and exhaustion would be futile for passport revocations); remand for APA review or transfer |
| Whether plaintiffs pleaded viable discrimination claims under 42 U.S.C. §1981/§1983 | Plaintiffs: revocations were motivated by Chinese ethnicity/national origin; seek injunctive relief | Gov't: §1983 does not reach federal actors; factual allegations of discrimination are conclusory | Held: Dismissed — §1983 inapplicable to federal actors and §1981 claims inadequately pleaded (insufficient factual allegations); dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118 (recognizing the high value of citizenship and requiring strong proof to revoke naturalization)
- Fedorenko v. United States, 449 U.S. 490 (stressing strict compliance and government burden in denaturalization contexts)
- Costello v. United States, 365 U.S. 265 (holding government bears heavy burden of proof to revoke naturalization)
- Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U.S. 665 (requiring clear, unequivocal, and convincing proof to set aside naturalization)
- Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (constitutional protection against involuntary loss of citizenship)
- United States v. Zucca, 351 U.S. 91 (holding revocation of citizenship requires judicial order)
- Tutun v. United States, 270 U.S. 568 (certificate of naturalization as conclusive evidence absent judicial proceeding)
- Nowak v. United States, 356 U.S. 660 (government must meet clear-and-convincing standard in denaturalization)
- Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44 (discussing prima facie standard under §1503)
- United States v. Straker, 800 F.3d 570 (discussing presumption of citizenship from a facially valid certificate)