Turner v. Napolitano
5 F. Supp. 3d 115
D.D.C.2013Background
- Plaintiff Richard F. Turner, a U.S. citizen born in 1977 and incarcerated in Wisconsin, mailed a November 4, 2012 letter to USCIS attempting to renounce his U.S. citizenship.
- USCIS denied processing because Turner could not appear in person for an interview at a designated USCIS office, per agency policy.
- Turner sued the Secretary of Homeland Security seeking mandamus relief and an APA remedy to compel USCIS to accept/process his renunciation request.
- Before decision, USCIS agreed to open Turner's file and hold his application in abeyance until his release from prison.
- The Court considered whether mandamus relief and an APA claim were proper given statutory renunciation mechanisms and USCIS’s in-person interview policy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus should compel USCIS to process renunciation while inmate | Turner has a clear right and USCIS a duty to process his written renunciation now | USCIS already responded and has no undisputed ministerial duty left; mandamus is extraordinary | Mandamus claim dismissed as moot because USCIS opened the case and agreed to hold it in abeyance |
| Whether USCIS’s in-person interview requirement violates the APA as arbitrary/capricious | Statute’s plain text does not mandate an in-person interview; agency rule is unlawful | Agency may determine how to assess voluntariness and reasonably requires in-person interviews to verify voluntariness and competence | APA claim dismissed: agency action not arbitrary or capricious given need to assess voluntariness and bona fides |
| Whether §1481(a)(6) permits renunciation in U.S. and creates a ministerial duty | Turner relies on §1481(a)(6) (renunciation in U.S. during war) as basis for relief | Govt accepts statute applies in wartime but contends procedural assessment is discretionary and requires interview | Court assumes wartime for analysis but finds only ministerial duty was to respond; that was performed |
| Jurisdiction over moot claims | Turner seeks relief still (abeyance) | USCIS’s agreement to hold case renders relief unnecessary | Court lacks jurisdiction over moot claims; dismissal granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Sluss v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 899 F. Supp. 2d 37 (D.D.C. 2012) (agency’s response and holding file in abeyance moots mandamus; in-person interview requirement upheld under APA)
- Schnitzler v. United States, 863 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2012) (similar prisoner renunciation challenge; mandamus dismissed as moot)
- In re Cheney, 406 F.3d 723 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (mandamus is extraordinary and discretionary relief)
- Power v. Barnhart, 292 F.3d 781 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (elements required for mandamus relief)
- Iron Arrow Honor Soc’y v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67 (1983) (federal courts lack jurisdiction to decide moot cases)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim)