900 F.3d 1075
9th Cir.2018Background
- Petitioner Sazar Dent, born in Honduras (1967), was adopted by a U.S. citizen and admitted to the U.S. in 1981; his adoptive mother filed to naturalize him as a child in 1982 but interviews were missed and the petition was not completed before he aged out.
- Dent filed his own naturalization petition in 1986, which the INS recommended for approval, but he repeatedly missed required preliminary exams/hearings and the district court denied the petition in 1989 for failure to prosecute.
- In 2003 Dent was convicted in Arizona of possession of narcotics and third-degree escape; DHS initiated removal proceedings alleging an aggravated felony (escape as a crime of violence) and a controlled-substance ground.
- Dent asserted (1) that 8 U.S.C. § 1433 (1982) violated equal protection as applied to his mother, (2) that INS deliberate indifference during processing violated due process (both child and adult applications), and (3) that his escape conviction was not an aggravated felony.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the government on citizenship and due process claims; the Ninth Circuit (Graber, J.) affirms those rulings but reverses the BIA on the aggravated-felony classification and remands for further proceedings on cancellation of removal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to assert mother's rights | Dent (as adopted child) may vindicate mother’s equal protection and due process rights | Govt did not contest third-party standing | Dent has third-party standing (close relationship; mother deceased) |
| Equal protection challenge to 8 U.S.C. § 1433 | §1433 discriminated against citizen adoptive parents (required petition) vs. biological or subsequently naturalizing parents | Statute rationally tailored to prevent immigration/adoption fraud; classification not a protected class | Rational-basis review applies; statute is constitutional under rational basis |
| Due process — INS deliberate indifference (childhood application) | INS was deliberately indifferent in processing mother's petition, causing Dent to age out | INS scheduled interviews; failures were not deliberately indifferent and no prejudice shown | No deliberate indifference; even if so, Dent cannot show prejudice from childhood application delays |
| Due process — INS deliberate indifference (adult application) | INS mishandling notices & procedures prevented completion of Dent’s approved adult petition | Dent failed to update address and failed to appear; agency at most grossly negligent; no prejudice | No deliberate indifference; Dent’s own failures caused the loss and no prejudice shown |
| Aggravated-felony classification of AZ third-degree escape | Escape conviction is a crime of violence (aggravated felony) | AZ §13-2502 is overbroad and need not involve physical force; §16(b) is invalid under Dimaya | Reversed: Arizona third-degree escape is not a "crime of violence" under §16 and thus not an aggravated felony; remand to BIA for new hearing on cancellation of removal |
Key Cases Cited
- Sessions v. Morales-Santana, 137 S. Ct. 1678 (Sup. Ct.) (heightened scrutiny may apply to citizenship claims involving gender classifications)
- Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (Sup. Ct.) (§16(b) void for vagueness)
- Brown v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir.) (test for deliberate indifference in immigration context)
- Brown v. Holder, 763 F.3d 1141 (9th Cir.) (deliberate indifference standard discussion)
- Colaianni v. INS, 490 F.3d 185 (2d Cir.) (petition requirement for derivative citizenship rationally related to preventing fraud)
- Ramirez v. Lynch, 810 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir.) (categorical approach for crime-of-violence inquiry)
- Chavez-Solis v. Lynch, 803 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir.) (statutory-text analysis under the categorical approach)
- Heller v. Doe ex rel. Doe, 509 U.S. 312 (Sup. Ct.) (accepting imperfect fit under rational-basis review)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (Sup. Ct.) (parental liberty interests)
- Zolotukhin v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.) (prejudice requirement for due process relief)