831 F.3d 1146
9th Cir.2016Background
- Mark Brown, born in India in 1968, entered the U.S. with his family in 1977; his parents Trevor and Marjorie filed N-400 naturalization petitions in 1983 and Marjorie also filed an N-604 for derivative citizenship for Brown.
- Under the law then in force, Brown would derive citizenship if both parents naturalized before his 18th birthday (July 4, 1986); Trevor naturalized November 15, 1985; Marjorie’s ceremony was August 26, 1986 (after Brown turned 18), so Brown did not derive citizenship.
- Brown later filed his own N-400 around May 21, 1991; an INS examiner allegedly told him there was no need to complete it because he was already a citizen, but Brown had prior misdemeanor convictions that ultimately rendered him ineligible for naturalization.
- Brown was placed in removal proceedings and ordered removed; he petitioned for review arguing the INS violated his procedural due process by obstructing or being deliberately indifferent to his ability to obtain citizenship.
- This court previously transferred Brown’s constitutional claim to the district court for factual findings; the district court found no deliberate indifference by INS employees or policymakers, and the Ninth Circuit denied Brown’s petition for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether INS arbitrarily/ intentionally obstructed Brown’s citizenship applications | Brown: INS employees mishandled parents’ applications and misinformed him, effectively blocking citizenship | Government: No evidence of arbitrary/intentional obstruction; mistakes at most negligent | Court: Brown did not prove arbitrary or intentional obstruction |
| Whether INS acted with deliberate indifference toward risk Brown would age out | Brown: delays, lost file, failure to expedite showed deliberate indifference | Government: Officials lacked subjective awareness or authority; no evidence policymakers knew of the risk | Court: No clear error in district court’s finding of no deliberate indifference |
| Whether INS policies (action or inaction) manifested deliberate indifference | Brown: agency policy refused expedites and failed to train examiners to check derivative status | Government: Policies/training existed; no evidence policymakers knew of systemic risk | Court: Policies did not show deliberate indifference absent evidence policymakers were aware of risk |
| Whether conduct of specific INS employees violated due process | Brown: employees who found/lost or processed forms failed to act timely | Government: No proof those employees knew of risk or had authority to expedite | Court: District court’s factual findings that employees did not act with deliberate indifference are not clearly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Holder, 763 F.3d 1141 (9th Cir.) (transferring constitutional claim to district court for factual findings)
- Henry A. v. Willden, 678 F.3d 991 (9th Cir.) (deliberate indifference test elements)
- Mondaca-Vega v. Lynch, 808 F.3d 413 (9th Cir.) (clear-error review of district court factual findings)
- Tamas v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 630 F.3d 833 (9th Cir.) (deliberate indifference framework quoted)
- Gibson v. Cty. of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir.) (policy liability under § 1983)
- Fairley v. Luman, 281 F.3d 913 (9th Cir.) (policy/inaction can establish liability when policymakers aware of risks)
- Oviatt ex rel. Waugh v. Pearce, 954 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir.) (definition of municipal/agency policy)