Nwozuzu v. United States, 712 F. App'x 31

Plaintiff Kelechi Gerald Nwozuzu, proceeding pro se, sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act alleging false imprisonment for two periods of immigration detention (2005–2012).
Detentions were pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), which mandates detention of certain noncitizens with criminal convictions.
Central legal question: whether government officials acted with "due care" under the FTCA exception 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a) when they concluded Nwozuzu lacked derivative U.S. citizenship because he was not a lawful permanent resident (LPR).
At the time of Nwozuzu’s detentions, circuit courts and the BIA were split on whether former INA § 321(a) required LPR status for derivative citizenship; Second Circuit had expressed reservations but had not definitively resolved the issue until 2013.
The district court dismissed Nwozuzu’s FTCA complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), concluding the § 2680(a) exception applied because officials exercised "due care." The Second Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the FTCA waive sovereign immunity for Nwozuzu’s false-imprisonment claims or § 2680(a) bars them because officials exercised due care	Nwozuzu: government should have known he acquired derivative citizenship through his parents despite lack of LPR status	Government: reasonable legal uncertainty about INA § 321(a) and authority interpreting it justified officials’ LPR-based determination and detention	Held: § 2680(a) applies; officials acted with due care given pre-2013 circuit/BIA disagreement, so FTCA waiver does not apply

Haber v. United States, 823 F.3d 746 (2d Cir. 2016) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(1) dismissal on appeal)
Cortlandt St. Recovery Corp. v. Hellas Telecomms., 790 F.3d 411 (2d Cir. 2015) (clear-error review for factual findings)
Mantena v. Johnson, 809 F.3d 721 (2d Cir. 2015) (pleading standards and inferences on jurisdictional review)
Fountain v. Karim, 838 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2016) (FTCA waiver scope and § 2680(a) context)
Myers & Myers, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Serv., 527 F.2d 1252 (2d Cir. 1975) (interpretation of "due care" under § 2680(a))
Hatahley v. United States, 351 U.S. 173 (U.S. 1956) (historical treatment of governmental due care concept)
Ashton v. Gonzales, 431 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2005) (Second Circuit’s earlier reservations about requiring LPR status under INA § 321(a))
Nwozuzu v. Holder, 726 F.3d 323 (2d Cir. 2013) (Second Circuit later held derivative citizenship could be acquired without LPR status)
United States v. Forey-Quintero, 626 F.3d 1323 (11th Cir. 2010) (contrary circuit precedent holding § 321(a) required LPR status)
Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2008) (contrary circuit precedent holding § 321(a) required LPR status)