982 F.3d 395
5th Cir.2020Background
- Miguel Angel Mendoza-Tarango, a federal inmate, filed Form N-600 in May 2013; USCIS approved the application and told him to appear personally at a USCIS office upon release to take the Oath of Allegiance.
- In Feb. 2019 he requested that USCIS officials travel to the federal prison to administer the oath; receiving no response, he filed a mandamus petition against USCIS field and national officials alleging unlawful withholding/unreasonable delay under the APA § 706(1).
- He argued USCIS had a nondiscretionary duty to administer the oath in custody; he cited 8 C.F.R. § 341.5(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1452, and a letter showing USCIS had sometimes traveled to prisons.
- The district court dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim and denied reconsideration; Mendoza-Tarango appealed.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed: the regulation and statute require the oath be taken before USCIS “within the United States,” but neither compels USCIS to travel to a place of confinement or sets a mandatory time for agency action; mandamus relief requires a clear right and a clear, nondiscretionary duty which he failed to show.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether USCIS’s alleged failure to administer the oath in custody states an APA § 706(1) claim (discrete agency action) | USCIS unlawfully withheld/unreasonably delayed a nondiscretionary duty to administer the oath in prison | No discrete, legally required action to travel to applicant’s place of confinement; agency discretion | Mandamus jurisdiction existed but Mendoza-Tarango failed to show a nondiscretionary duty; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether 8 C.F.R. § 341.5(b) requires USCIS to travel to administer the oath | The regulation requires USCIS to administer the oath and thus implies duty to travel when applicant cannot appear | Regulation requires the oath be taken “before USCIS within the United States” but does not specify location; onus on applicant to appear | Regulation does not legally require USCIS to travel; agency has discretion about where oath is administered |
| Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1452 requires USCIS to administer the oath in prison or within a set time | Statute does not permit withholding the oath until in-person USCIS office appearance; implies obligation to administer | Statute requires oath before a USCIS member within the U.S. but contains no time or place mandate; applicant’s oath is prerequisite | Statute does not impose a duty to travel or a mandatory timeframe; absence of deadline defeats unreasonable-delay claim |
| Whether district court erred by not granting leave to amend | Court should have allowed amendment to cure deficiencies | Plaintiff never requested leave to amend or identified proposed amendments and already pleaded his best case | No abuse of discretion in denying leave to amend |
Key Cases Cited
- Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55 (2004) (APA § 706(1) relief limited to discrete agency actions an agency is required to take)
- Randall D. Wolcott, M.D., P.A. v. Sebelius, 635 F.3d 757 (5th Cir. 2011) (mandamus elements: clear right, clear duty, no other adequate remedy; extraordinary remedy)
- DeMarco v. Davis, 914 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 2019) (standard of review for § 1915A(b)(1) dismissals — same as Rule 12(b)(6))
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim on its face)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (pro se complaints held to less stringent standards)