Peter Eche v. Eric Holder, Jr.
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 19047
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- LPRs Eche and Lo resided in CNMI before the 2009 CNRA transition to federal immigration law.
- CNRA § 705(c) bars counting CNMI residence before transition as United States residence for naturalization, with a narrow exception for abandonment analysis.
- CNMI transition on November 28, 2009 placed CNMI under federal immigration jurisdiction; pre-transition CNMI residence was not U.S. residence.
- USCIS denied naturalization applications based on that pre-transition residence not counting; district court affirmance followed.
- Court held CNRA’s text controls; Naturalization Clause considerations do not require extending federal rules to the CNMI pre-transition period.
- Plaintiffs seek count of pre-transition CNMI residence toward five-year requirement, appealing district court’s interpretation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does CNRA § 705(c) count pre-transition CNMI residence for naturalization? | Eche/Lo urge counting CNMI time as U.S. residence. | Holder/National government say § 705(c) bars counting pre-transition residence. | No; pre-transition CNMI residence cannot count except for abandonment purposes. |
| Does § 705(c) allow counting for abandonment determination only? | Time in CNMI should be treated as U.S. residence to assess abandonment. | Exception limited to determining loss/abandonment of LPR status. | Yes; the second clause permits counting for abandonment, but not toward naturalization eligibility. |
| Does Naturalization Clause require uniform federal naturalization rules to CNMI? | Rodiek suggested uniformity; CNMI should follow U.S. rules. | Naturalization Clause limits apply to the United States, not CNMI pre-transition. | Naturalization Clause does not apply to CNMI pre-transition; CNMI not part of the United States for this clause. |
| Should the court address exhaustion and jurisdiction given administrative guidance to avoid appeals? | Exhaustion excused as futile given government’s advice. | Exhaustion not jurisdictional; review allowed if proper. | Exhaustion prudential, not jurisdictional; court decided on merits due to exceptional circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sagana v. Tenorio, 384 F.3d 731 (9th Cir. 2004) (CNMI immigration history and guest workers context)
- Khodagholian v. Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 1003 (9th Cir. 2003) (abandonment of LPR status; presence in CNMI relevant for that inquiry)
- Khoshfahm v. Holder, 655 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2011) (abandonment/continuity of LPR status considerations)
- Rabang v. INS, 35 F.3d 1449 (9th Cir. 1994) (birthright citizenship; geographic scope of constitutional clauses)
- Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (Supreme Court 1901) (Insular Cases; geographic limitation of federal clauses to U.S.”)
- Rodiek, 162 F. 469 (9th Cir. 1908) (historical note on territorial naturalization rules; uniformity concerns)
- Laing v. Ashcroft, 370 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 2004) (exhaustion/administrative appeal considerations)
- Maronyan v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 658 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2011) (exhaustion/administrative jurisdiction nuances)
- Friend v. Reno, 172 F.3d 638 (9th Cir. 1999) (context on territorial status and constitutional applicability)