Sluss v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
899 F. Supp. 2d 37
D.D.C.2012Background
- Plaintiff, a federal prisoner, seeks to compel USCIS or State to issue a CLN or act on expatriation requests under 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a)(6).
- Plaintiff allegedly renounced U.S. citizenship in Canada on Sept. 7, 2010 and has since been incarcerated in the U.S.
- USCIS advised on July 12, 2012 that renunciation cannot proceed while plaintiff is in the U.S. and must be done in person after release.
- Plaintiff filed the action March 19, 2012, with supplementary communications through 2012.
- Court treated the action as mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 and considered APA claims.
- Court granted motion to dismiss as moot for mandamus and dismissed APA claim for lack of standing and failure to state a claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus may compel CLN issuance under § 1481(a)(6). | Renunciation action should be compelled. | CLN issuance is discretionary. | Moot; mandamus refused as USCIS already responded and act is discretionary. |
| Whether USCIS’s response to renunciation request violated the APA. | Agency acted arbitrarily and capriciously. | Record supports USCIS’s permissible, reasoned action given incarceration. | No APA violation; action reasonable. |
| Whether plaintiff has standing to challenge § 1481(a)(6) process while incarcerated. | Injury from denial of renunciation. | Incarceration bars loss of nationality; injury not redressable. | Lacked standing; not redressable. |
| Whether the State Department should be compelled to act on a CLN request. | State Department should issue CLN. | State Department action is discretionary and not compelled. | Not compelled; mootness and discretion defeated relief. |
| Whether plaintiff states a viable APA claim. | APA requires compelled agency action. | No final agency action to review; no unlawfully withheld action. | No viable APA claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bond v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 828 F. Supp. 2d 60 (D.D.C. 2011) (mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and rarely granted)
- Kaufman v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1334 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (agency discretion in compelled action; non-reviewable aspects)
- Koos v. Holm, 204 F. Supp. 2d 1099 (W.D. Tenn. 2002) (incarceration limits rights; lawfulness of renunciation considerations)