Mark Brown v. Eric Holder, Jr., 763 F.3d 1141

Background

Brown, born in India, immigrated to the U.S. in 1977; his parents filed N-400 naturalization applications in 1983; mother later naturalized in 1986 after Brown’s 18th birthday.
Trevor (father) naturalized in 1985; Marjorie (mother) allegedly faced processing delays and later naturalized in 1986, after Brown turned 18.
Brown pursued naturalization himself, with disputed INS records suggesting he was purportedly naturalized in 1996 and again in 2001, though records are contested.
Brown faced removal proceedings based on drug offenses and aggravated felonies; he withdrew asylum relief and was ordered removed to India in 2011.
In the removal proceeding, Brown argued he was a citizen or entitled to citizenship via derivate/constitutional remedies due to INS mishandling; the IJ and BIA denied/declined to resolve those citizenship issues, prompting this petition for review.
The panel transferred the nationality dispute to a district court for factual findings on whether INS mishandling violated due process, and denied relief on estoppel and statutory citizenship grounds.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the removal order is reviewable given exhaustion rules	Brown argues the issue should be reviewed despite purported exhaustion.	Barron/agency contends exhaustion bars review unless nonfrivolous citizenship claim is raised.	Partially denied; jurisdiction over the removal order is limited and case transferred for citizenship facts.
Whether INS mishandling violated Brown’s due process and warrants citizenship relief	Brown claims procedural due process violation due to mishandling; may warrant citizenship as remedy.	Government argues no constitutional violation or limited remedy; mishandling alone not enough.	Transfer to district court for factual findings; potential citizenship remedy if due process violation established.
Whether estoppel bars denial of Brown’s citizenship	Brown alleges government estoppel due to misconduct.	Estoppel barred by Pangilinan and Hibi; cannot confer citizenship.	Estoppel claim dismissed as dependent on successful due process showing.
Whether private oath by INS officer satisfies public ceremony requirement for citizenship	Brown argues 1996 private oath suffices for citizenship.	Cases reject private oath as not meeting public ceremony requirement.	Adopted precedent holding private oath does not satisfy §1448(a)’s public ceremony requirement.
Whether the district court should adjudicate the nationality claim under section 2201 and transfer the case	Court should decide nationality claim given genuine issues of material fact.	Agency-friendly posture; district court transfer appropriate to resolve factual issues.	Case transferred to district court for evidentiary findings on nationality claim.

Key Cases Cited

Wauchope v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 985 F.2d 1407 (9th Cir.1993) (courts may grant citizenship to remedy constitutional violations; standing to challenge derivate rights)
Pangilinan v. INS, 486 U.S. 875 (U.S. 1988) (due process limits on denying entitlements to naturalization; government cannot violate INA remedies)
Hibi v. INS, 414 U.S. 5 (U.S. 1973) (government estoppel barred from denying citizenship; not allowed to contravene statute)
Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (U.S. 1961) (government cannot be estopped from denying citizenship in all cases)
INS v. Miranda, 459 U.S. 14 (U.S. 1982) (government cannot be estopped from denying a claim to citizenship when violated)
Abiodun v. Gonzales, 461 F.3d 1210 (10th Cir.2006) (oath/ceremony requirements not met by interview oath; public ceremony required)
Okafor v. Gonzales, 456 F.3d 531 (5th Cir.2006) (public ceremony requirement not satisfied by interview oath)
Tovar-Alvarez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 427 F.3d 1350 (11th Cir.2005) (public ceremony requirement not met by interview oath)
Perdomo-Padilla v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 964 (9th Cir.2003) (nature of waiver and citizenship process discussed in context of due process)