McKenzie v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 14773
| 10th Cir. | 2014Background
- McKenzie’s Canadian birth certificate listed the baptismal date as birth date, later corrected by Canada; his US naturalization certificate reflected the incorrect birth date.
- He obtained US citizenship in 2004; in 2008 Canada corrected his birth certificate to reflect his true birth date.
- In 2011 he sought a replacement naturalization certificate using a corrected birth date, relying on 8 C.F.R. § 338.5 and § 334.16(b).
- USCIS denied the replacement, citing § 338.5(e) and stating it had no authority to amend a birth date set at time of naturalization.
- The district court dismissed, holding § 334.16(b) does not confer jurisdiction here and that post-Immigration Act naturalizations are outside its reach.
- Dr. McKenzie appeals, arguing § 334.16(b) grants jurisdiction or, alternatively, that federal-question or other bases exist.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 334.16(b) creates district-court jurisdiction. | McKenzie relies on § 334.16(b) to order amendment. | USCIS and district court contend regulation cannot confer jurisdiction post-Immigration Act. | No jurisdiction under § 334.16(b) |
| Whether federal-question jurisdiction exists despite Congress withholding naturalization from district courts. | Argues general federal-question jurisdiction and constitutional delegation. | Specific withdrawal overrides general § 1331 authority. | No jurisdiction under § 1331 due to explicit withdrawal |
| Whether McKenzie’s claim is colorable under § 334.16(b). | Regulation authorizes court-ordered amendment of naturalization documents. | Regulation does not create private rights or remedies; post-Act naturalizations excluded. | Not colorable; no private federal-right remedy under the regulation |
| Whether alternative relief (remand with leave to amend) is available. | Requests remand with ability to amend in district court. | Argument not preserved; district court lacked jurisdiction anyway. | Not addressed as remedy; dismissal affirmed due to lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (U.S. 2006) (limits on jurisdiction; colorable claim must arise under law)
- RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, 132 S. Ct. 2065 (S. Ct. 2012) (jurisdictional rules; general jurisdiction constraints)
- United States v. Alisal Water Corp., 431 F.3d 643 (9th Cir. 2005) (specific versus general jurisdiction; statutory limits apply)
- K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, 486 U.S. 180 (U.S. 1988) (narrowing of jurisdiction by specific controls)
- Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc., 438 U.S. 59 (U.S. 1978) (federal-question jurisdiction limits; substantial federal interest required)
- Hanson v. Wyatt, 552 F.3d 1148 (10th Cir. 2008) (private rights of action arise from Congress; regulations alone rarely create them)
- Steele Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1998) (existence of jurisdiction; courts may dismiss for lack of federal controversy)
- Prairie Band of Potawatomi Indians v. Pierce, 253 F.3d 1240 (10th Cir. 2001) (colorable claim standard; merit not required for jurisdiction)
- Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99 (U.S. 1977) (statutory limits prevail over general jurisdiction)