Yu-Ling Teng v. District Director
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 8161
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Yu-Ling Teng is a U.S. citizen who received an agency-issued certificate of naturalization (INS/USCIS) in 2001 listing her birth year as 1944; Teng asserts her true birth year is 1939, which SSA records reflect.
- The discrepancy arose because Teng provided different birth-year information to SSA (1939) and to INS when applying for permanent residency (1944, supported by an aunt’s declaration).
- Teng’s mismatched records prevented California from issuing a permanent REAL ID–compliant driver’s license; temporary limited license issued but not fully verified.
- Teng requested USCIS correct her agency-issued certificate; USCIS declined, citing regulations and Teng’s prior statement at naturalization.
- Teng sued in federal district court seeking an order requiring USCIS to amend her naturalization certificate; the district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding federal courts lack jurisdiction to modify agency-issued naturalization certificates under the Immigration Act of 1990.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction to order USCIS to amend an agency-issued certificate of naturalization | Teng: agency regulations and general jurisdictional principles permit judicial review and amendment of a certificate | USCIS: 1990 Immigration Act vested exclusive authority over naturalization and correction of agency-issued certificates in the Attorney General/USCIS, eliminating district court jurisdiction | Held: No jurisdiction; courts lack power to modify agency-issued naturalization certificates under post-1990 statutory scheme |
| Whether agency regulations (8 C.F.R. § 334.16(b) and § 338.5) create court jurisdiction to amend certificates | Teng: the regulations support judicial authority or at least imply a statutory basis for court review | USCIS: regulations authorize USCIS (not courts) to correct USCIS-issued certificates and do not override statutory allocation of authority | Held: Regulations cannot confer subject-matter jurisdiction where Congress has assigned exclusive authority to the executive |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (federal courts have only the jurisdiction granted by Constitution and statute)
- United States v. Alisal Water Corp., 431 F.3d 643 (9th Cir. 2005) (statute can negate district court jurisdiction)
- Opera Plaza Residential Parcel Homeowners Ass’n v. Hoang, 376 F.3d 831 (9th Cir. 2004) (agency regulation cannot itself confer federal subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007) (procedural requirements and jurisdictional limits binding on courts)
- Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443 (2004) (only Congress may determine lower federal court subject-matter jurisdiction)
- McKenzie v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 761 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir. 2014) (when Congress removed court jurisdiction to naturalize, derivative powers to modify naturalization documents were also removed)
- Gorbach v. Reno, 219 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2000) (1990 Act shifted power to naturalize from courts to Attorney General)
- United States v. Hovsepian, 359 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2004) (narrow circumstances in which courts may act in naturalization proceedings)
- Tritz v. U.S. Postal Serv., 721 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction)