Ojeda Combined Naturalization Decisions & Complaint
Transcript of Ojeda Combined Naturalization Decisions & Complaint
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ANDREW FISHKIN, ESQ. CBN 237845 LAW OFFICE OF ANDREW J. FISHKIN P.C. 235 H STREET BAKERSFIELD, CA 93304 [email protected] TEL: 661-379-7040 FAX: 661-322-6770
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Gabriela Ojeda Plaintiff, Vs. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services; Department of Homeland Security; Lynn Quan Feldman, Director, Fresno Field Office, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, in her official capacity; Monica Toro, Director, Sacramento District Office, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services in her official capacity; Lori Scialabba, Director, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, in her official capacity; John F. Kelly, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, in his official capacity, Defendants.
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
CASE NO:
Petition for De Novo Review on Denial of Application for Naturalization and Request for a Hearing Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1421 (c)
Case 1:17-cv-00433-DAD-SAB Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 Page 1 of 19
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1.Plaintiff-Petitioner, Gabriela Ojeda, by and through her undersigned
attorney, files this Petition for Review pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1421 (c), Immigration
and Naturalization Act (“INA”)§310 (c), seeking de novo review of the U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Service’s (“USCIS”) denial of her application for
naturalization and a plenary hearing on that application.
This Court further has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2201(Declaratory
Judgment Act), 5 U.S.C. §701 (Administrative Procedure Act) and 28 U.S.C.
§1331.
2. Ms. Gabriela Ojeda is a citizen of Mexico and a lawful permanent resident
of the United States and has resided in the United States continuously for more
than 26 years. (Exhibit 1- Copy of her LPR Card) Furthermore, she meets all the
requirements for naturalization, yet nevertheless has endured a one-year battle to
naturalize as a U.S. citizen, the country of citizenship of her husband, her four
children and the county she has resided in for over 27 years practically her entire
adult life.
3. Ms. Ojeda first filed for naturalization on June 15, 2015 and passed her
citizenship and naturalization examination on September 18, 2015, however for a
month there was no USCIS action on her application. Finally, on October 24, 2015
Case 1:17-cv-00433-DAD-SAB Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 Page 2 of 19
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Ms. Ojeda’s Naturalization application was denied. (Exhibit 2-Decision Dated
October 24, 2015)
4. On November 20, 2015 Ms. Ojeda made a timely request for a hearing on
her Naturalization application under INA §336 (a), 8 U.S.C. §1447 (a), and
submitted a supplemental attachment in support, which included all reasons for her
hearing request. (Exhibit 3- N-336, Request for Hearing on a Decision in
Naturalization Proceedings NBC*1690011030)
5. A review hearing was scheduled for July 20, 2016. On February 8, 2017
the USCIS officer, defendants’ designee affirmed the denial of Ms. Ojeda’s
Naturalization application. The denial states that: (1) Ms. Ojeda entered the United
States without inspection on or about January 23, 1990; (2) Ms. Ojeda was
apprehended by Immigration and Naturalization Services, (INS) in New York on
December 13, 1993; (3) on August 24, 1994 Ms. Ojeda was ordered deported by
the Immigration Court. (See Exhibit 4- USCIS’s Decision Dated February 8, 2017)
However, INS never executed the deportation order.
6. On January 1, 2000 Ms. Ojeda married Mr. Jose Amador who received
employment-based green card as a skilled restaurant worker. Ms. Ojeda retained an
Case 1:17-cv-00433-DAD-SAB Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 Page 3 of 19
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
attorney who represented her during the adjustment of status process. Ms. Ojeda
received her green card as the derivative of an employment based category E-39.
(See Exhibit 5-Copy of Mr. Ojeda’s I-485 Interview Notice)
7. To establish eligibility under INA §316 (a) and 8 U.S.C. §1427 (a) Ms.
Ojeda must show: (1) she meets the residence requirements prior to filing her
Naturalization application; (2) Ms. Ojeda was lawfully admitted; (3) she has
resided continuously within the United States from the date of application; and (4)
during the periods referred to in this subsection, she has been and still is a person
of good moral character.
8. Ms. Ojeda has demonstrated her eligibility for Naturalization.
9. Ms. Ojeda has been a lawful permanent resident for over ten years and
during that time has and continues to reside in the United States.
10. Ms. Ojeda has been and still is person of good moral character.
11. Ms. Ojeda has battled for about two years for the citizenship to which
she is legally entitled, enduring delays and an apparent discriminatory treatment
Case 1:17-cv-00433-DAD-SAB Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 Page 4 of 19
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
simply because USCIS failed to properly adjudicate Ms. Ojeda’s case on May 12,
2006 when USCIS approved Ms. Ojeda’s application for adjustment of status (I-
485) and she became a lawful permanent resident of the United States (about
twelve years after Ms. Ojeda was ordered deported).
12. The USCIS had the sole legally authority to execute the August 24, 1994
removal order, however USCIS failed to do so.
13. The USCIS had the sole legal authority to rescind the grant on the
legality of Ms. Ojeda’s residence in the United States, however USCIS failed to do
so.
14. The five-year statutory window for rescinding Ms. Ojeda’s LPR status
has now passed.
15. Defendant’s unlawful conduct has deprived Ms. Ojeda of the basic
privileges of citizenship: the right to vote, to serve on a jury, to travel abroad and
return to the United States without fear of exclusion from this country, or to
receive business and educational loans and benefits received for citizens. Ms.
Ojeda now petitions this Court to conduct a de novo review of her naturalization
Case 1:17-cv-00433-DAD-SAB Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 Page 5 of 19
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
application and requests a hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C.§1421 (c), which confers on
this Court the authority to make its own findings of fact and conclusions of law
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
16. This Court has jurisdiction over the present action pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§1421 (c), denial of naturalization application may be reviewed by the United
States District Court; 28 U.S.C. §2201, Declaratory Judgment Act; 5 U.S.C.§ 701,
Administrative Procedure Act, 28 U.S.C. §1331(federal question statute) and
§1346 (b) (Untied States as a defendant).
17. Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1421 (c) and 28 U.S.C. §1391 (e) venue is
properly with this Court because Plaintiff resides within the Eastern District of
California. See also 8 C.F.R. §336.9.
18. Plaintiff-Petitioner timely files this Petition for Review within 120 days
of Defendant’s February 8, 2017 final decision denying her application for
naturalization. See 8 C.F.R.§§310.5 (b), 336.9 (b).
Case 1:17-cv-00433-DAD-SAB Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 Page 6 of 19
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PARTIES
19. Plaintiff-Petitioner Gabriela Ojeda is a citizen and national of Mexico,
and a lawful permanent resident of the United States, residing within the
jurisdiction of this Court.
20. Defendant-Respondent United States Citizenship and Immigration
Service (“USCIS”), which is a division of the Department of Homeland Security
(“DHS”) is the federal agency responsible for the adjudication of Naturalization
applications. The USCIS is the successor agency to the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (“INS”) in the area of Naturalization applications. “The
petition for review shall be brought against the Immigration and Naturalization
Service.” See 8 C.F.R§336.9 (b)
21. Defendant-Respondent Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) is
the federal parent agency of the USCIS and the responsible agency for the
administration and enforcement of the country’s immigration and naturalization
laws.
22. Defendant-Respondent Lynn Quan Feldman is the Director of the USCIS
Fresno Field Office, which is a division of the Department of Homeland Security,
Case 1:17-cv-00433-DAD-SAB Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 Page 7 of 19
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(DHS) and is the official in charge of the USCIS’s office where Petitioner’s
hearing was held pursuant to 8 C.F.R.§336.2. “The petition for review shall be
brought against the….. official in charge of the Service office where the hearing
was held pursuant to §336.2” See 8 C.F.R. 336.9 (b)
23. Defendant-Respondent Monica Toro is the Director of the Sacramento
District Office of the USCIS, which oversees the Fresno Field Office, and is
responsible for the administration and adjudication of naturalization applications.
24. Defendant-Respondent Lori Scialabba is the Director of the United
States Citizenship and Immigration Service, a division of the DHS and is
responsible for the administration and adjudication of naturalization applications.
25. Defendant- Respondent John F. Kelly is the Secretary of the Department
of Homeland Security, (DHS) and is responsible for the administration and
enforcement of the immigration and naturalization law.
NATURALIZATION AUTHORITY
26. To naturalize as a U.S. citizen an applicant must be a lawfully admitted
permanent resident alien, 8 U.S.C. §1429, who has continuously resided in the
Case 1:17-cv-00433-DAD-SAB Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 Page 8 of 19
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States for at least five years prior to the filing of his or her naturalization
application; has been physically present for at least half of that time; and between
the filing of his application and his admission to citizenship, has resided in the
United States. 8 U.S. C. §1427 (a) (1); (2)
27. Next, an applicant must have been “a person of good moral character,
attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States and well disposed
to the good order and happiness of the United States” for five years before the
filing of the application and up to the time of admission to citizenship. Id. §1427
(a) (3). Finally, the applicant must not fall into any of the categories described in 8
U.S.C. §1424 (a) (categories such as membership in the Communist Party or those
who advocate opposition to organized government).
FACTS
28. Plaintiff-Petitioner Gabriela Ojeda, age 44 is a citizen of Mexico who
entered the USA without inspection on or about January 23, 1990 through San
Ysidro, California.
INS officers in New York apprehended Ms. Ojeda at her work place on
December 13, 1993. Ms. Ojeda was taken to the INS office, detained for about 6
hours and was asked to sign some papers after that she was released to go home.
Case 1:17-cv-00433-DAD-SAB Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 Page 9 of 19
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(See Exhibit 6-USCIS, Record of Sworn Statement- Ms. Ojeda’s Statement Dated
September 18, 2015)
29. On January 1, 2000 Ms. Ojeda marry Mr. Jose Amador who received
employment based green card as a skilled restaurant worker. (See Exhibit 7-
Marriage Certificate) Ms. Ojeda received her green card as the derivative of an
employment based category E-39. (See Exhibits 1 and 8- I-485 Approval Notice,
WAC 05 195 50384)
30. On May 12, 2006, in other words 12 years after Petitioner was ordered
removed, Ms. Gabriela Ojeda obtained permanent resident status in immigration
classification E-39, derivative of an employment-based green card (in the present
case her husband). Ms. Ojeda has resided in the United States ever since and
currently resides in Arvin, California.
31. Since Ms. Ojeda became a LPR she has traveled on several occasions to
Mexico and every single time when she was returning to the U.S.A. she was
seeking entry into the United States.
Case 1:17-cv-00433-DAD-SAB Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 Page 10 of 19
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
32. On June 15, 2015, Ms. Ojeda applied for naturalization in Fresno,
California. (See Exhibit 2) On September 18, 2015, Ms. Ojeda attended and passed
her naturalization examination but was told that a decision could not yet be made
on her naturalization application.
33. Ms. Gabriela Ojeda never received a notice scheduling an oath
ceremony.
34. On October 24, 2015 USCIS, Fresno Field Office denied her application
for naturalization on the grounds that Ms. Ojeda was “ordered deported on August
24, 1994” and she “failed” to depart from the United States. Because Ms. Ojeda
“never left the United States” she “never fulfilled the deportation.” “Therefore
USCIS did not have jurisdiction over the I-485 at the time of adjustment.” (See
Exhibit 2-USCIS’s October 24, 2015 Decision)
35. Ironically, the USCIS alleged that because the Service failed to execute
the removal order and remove Ms. Ojeda to Mexico, Plaintiff “never fulfilled the
deportation.” Further, the USCIS alleged that because the USCIS’s officers failed
to perform their duties properly, correctly, in good faith and in accordance with the
law and governing regulations Ms. Ojeda was not “lawfully admitted” under 8
Case 1:17-cv-00433-DAD-SAB Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 Page 11 of 19
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
U.S.C. §§147, 1429 because USCIS had no jurisdiction over Ms. Ojeda’s case at
the time.
36. On November 20, 2015 Ms. Ojeda appealed the denial by filing a request
for a hearing (before an immigration officer) on a decision in naturalization
proceedings (N-336). (See Exhibit 3-Request for Hearing on a Decision in
Naturalization Proceedings) On July 20, 2016 Ms. Corona appeared for her
scheduled hearing on the appeal.
37. On February 8, 2017 the USCIS Fresno Office denied one more time
Ms. Ojeda’s naturalization request. The decision states that Ms. Ojeda was “not
interviewed prior to approval” of her I-485 application and that a review of Ms.
Ojeda’s “immigration records establishes” that the documents relating to Ms.
Ojeda’s “January 23, 1990 apprehension were not identified and joined” to Ms.
Ojeda’s “Form I-485 before approval of that application.” (See Exhibit 4- USCIS’s
decision dated February 8, 2017)
38. On February 8, 2017 the USCIS Fresno Office in its decision conceded
that through USCIS’s officers’ failure to correctly perform their duties that Ms.
Case 1:17-cv-00433-DAD-SAB Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 Page 12 of 19
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Corona’s lawful permanent resident status (LPR) was granted and never rescinded
and that Ms. Ojeda remains a lawful permanent resident of the United States.
39. Plaintiff Gabriela Ojeda, has exhausted all of her administrative
remedies by administratively appealing the denial in accordance with 8 U.S.C.
§1447 (a), attending the appeal hearing before an immigration officer, and
receiving a decision on the administrative appeal. Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1421 (c) a
person whose application for naturalization is denied, after a hearing before an
immigration officer under §336 (a), may seek review of such denial before the
United States District Court.
CAUSES OF ACTION
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violation of Immigration and Naturalization Act and Administrative
Procedures Act
(“Lawfully Admitted”)
40. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 39 are repeated and
realleged as though fully set forth herein.
Case 1:17-cv-00433-DAD-SAB Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 Page 13 of 19
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
41. Respondent violated the INA in concluding that Ms. Gabriela Ojeda was
not “lawfully admitted” as a permanent resident, considering that a lawful
admission is required for naturalization and considering that a USCIS’s officer
granted Ms. Ojeda a LPR status 11 years ago.
While Respondent argues that Ms. Ojeda was not “lawfully admitted for
permanent resident, Respondent’s argument is erroneous. According to INA §101
(a) (20), “lawfully admitted for permanent residence” is defined as “the status of
having been accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the United States as
an immigrant in accordance with the immigration laws, such status not having
changed.” Evidently, Ms. Ojeda’s Legal Permanent Resident status became a fact
because on May 12, 2006 the USCIS’s officer who had the authority and was
vested with the power to grant or deny Ms. Ojdeda’s application, in fact decided
that Ms. Ojeda is eligible to adjust status to a LPR.
Moreover, each time Ms. Ojeda was returning from Mexico she was
inspected and lawfully admitted at port of entry by the U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) Agents. In order to determine admissibility CBP officers may
“interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to
remain in the United States.” See 8 U.S.C. §1357 (a) (1); INA §287 (a) (1). The
INA is based on the law of presumption and applicants for admission are presumed
to be immigrants until they prove that they fit into one of the nonimmigrant
Case 1:17-cv-00433-DAD-SAB Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 Page 14 of 19
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
classifications. Accordingly, the U.S. CBP officers determined that Ms. Corona is
admissible and did not prevent her entry into the United States.
42. Defendants have unlawfully and erroneously interpreted the definition of
the term “lawfully admitted” in INA §101 (a) (20). Ms. Ojeda having obtained the
privilege of residing permanently in the United States has been lawfully admitted
to the United States on May 12, 2006 based on her derivative status and the same
employment petition filed on behalf of her husband.
Based on this erroneous interpretation Defendants have erroneously denied
Ms. Ojeda’s application for naturalization in violation of INA. Plaintiff is entitled
to injunctive relief to “compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably
delayed” and to hold unlawful and set aside agency action that, is not in
accordance with the law. 5 U.S.C. §§706 (1) and (2)
Finally, while Defendants argue that Ms. Ojeda was not “lawfully admitted”
for permanent residence in this specific case, unfortunately Ms. Ojeda’s case is not
the only one where the USCIS’s officers failed to perform their duties correctly
and in accordance with the law. More specifically counsel has a pending Petition
for De Novo Review on Denial of Application for Naturalization and Request for a
Hearing Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1421 (c) with this court due to USCIS’s failure to
properly perform their duties. (See Case No.1:16-cv-00798-AWI-BAM)
Case 1:17-cv-00433-DAD-SAB Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 Page 15 of 19
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violation of Immigration and Naturalization Act and Administrative
Procedures Act
(Negligence)
43. Ms. Ojeda realleges paragraphs 1-42 herein.
44.Respondents violated the INA when it breached its duty and failed to
review its files and investigate in advance Ms. Ojeda’s adjustment of status case.
Respondents admitted Ms. Ojeda as a lawful permanent resident of the United
States 11 years after she was ordered deported. Respondents did not rescind Ms.
Ojeda’s permanent resident status within the five-year statutory period. See INA
§246 (a); 8 U.S.C. §1256 (a) Ms. Ojdeda’s green card was granted due to
Respondents’ failure to perform their duties and there is no proof to the contrary.
45. Respondent’s allegations that Ms. Ojeda was not “lawfully admitted” for
permanent resident, are simply erroneous because the same
government/Respondents, instead of executing Plaintiff’s removal order in fact
approved Ms. Ojeda’s I-485 application and based on that approval Ms. Ojeda
became a lawful permanent resident of the Untied States.
Case 1:17-cv-00433-DAD-SAB Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 Page 16 of 19
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
46.Defendants owe plaintiff a clear and certain duty to adjudicate plaintiff’
application on the basis that Ms. Ojeda remains a Lawful Permanent Resident of
the United States and was not stripped of the same status by the Respondents’
administrative “black-holes”, by the Respondents’ numerous failures to comply
with their duties and in accordance with the law and the governing regulations.
47. Because Defendants in their decision dated February 8, 2017 concede
that they have failed to perform their duties and because Ms.Ojeda’s permanent
status was never “rescinded” thus she is eligible for U.S. citizenship through
naturalization. Hence, Respondents’ attempts to discriminate against Ms. Ojeda
and deny naturalization, to which she is legally entitled, are outrageous violations
of her constitutional rights.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violation of APA
48. Ms. Ojeda realleges paragraphs 1-47 herein.
49. Defendants’ denial of Ms. Ojeda’s naturalization application is an
arbitrary, capricious abuse of discretion not in accord with the law.
Case 1:17-cv-00433-DAD-SAB Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 Page 17 of 19
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
50. Ms. Ojeda further requests that the Court hold unlawful and set aside
Defendants’ denial of Ms. Ojeda’s naturalization application pursuant to the APA
5 U.S.C. §706 (2).
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff-Petitioner, respectfully requests that this Court:
1. Assume jurisdiction over this matter;
2. Order that a hearing take place in this matter;
3. Review de novo Plaintiff-Petitioner’s application for naturalization and
grant her naturalization;
4. Award Plaintiff reasonable costs and attorney’s fees under the Equal
Access to Justice Act; and
5. Grant such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Date: 03/24/2017 By: /S/ Andrew Fishkin
______________________
Andrew Fishkin, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiff
Case 1:17-cv-00433-DAD-SAB Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 Page 18 of 19
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1: Copy of Plaintiff’s Permanent Resident Card
Exhibit 2: Copy of USCIS’s Decision Dated: October 24, 2015
Exhibit 3: Copy of Form N-336, Request for Hearing on a Decision in
Naturalization Proceedings, NBC*1690011030
Exhibit 4: Copy of USCIS’s Decision Dated: February 8, 2017
Exhibit 5: Copy or Mr. Jose Ojeda’s I-485 Interview Notice
Exhibit 6: Record of Sworn Statement Copy
Exhibit 7: Copy of Marriage Certificate
Exhibit 8: Copy of I-485 Approval Notice, WAC 05 195 50384
Case 1:17-cv-00433-DAD-SAB Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 Page 19 of 19
Case 1:17-cv-00433-DAD-SAB Document 1-2 Filed 03/24/17 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT 2
Case 1:17-cv-00433-DAD-SAB Document 1-2 Filed 03/24/17 Page 2 of 3
October 24, 2015
Gabriela Ojeda iOOO El Camino Reai Arvin, CA 93203
Dear Gabriela Ojeda:
DECISION
U.S. Ocparlmcnl of Homeland Security
ll.S. Cilizcnship and lmmigraLinn Service:; f."rc:sno Field 0(/in• 74!1 P Slrccl. Suite 12(1 l:n::mo. Cl\ 93 721
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
A098 471 988 N BC*005974395
Thank you for submitting Form N-400, Application for Naturalization, to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USClS) under section 316 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
After a thorough review of the information provided in your application for naturalization, the documents supporting your application, and your testimony during your naturalizati'on interview, USC IS has determined that you are not eligible for naturalization. Accordingly, USCIS must deny your application for naturalization.
Generally, to qualify for naturalization under INA 316, an applicant must:
o Be 18 years of age or older at the time of filing Form N-400;
o Be lawfully admitted for permanent residence;
o Be a lawful permanent resident for at least 5 years at the time of filing Form N-400;
• Demonstrate good moral character for at least 5 years prior to the Form N-400 filing date, and during the period leading to administration of the Oath of Allegiance;
• Have resided continuously in the United States for at least 5 years as a lawful permanent resident before filing Form N-400;
o Have resided for at least 3 months in the State or USCIS District where residency is claimed before filing Form N-400;
o Have resided continuously in the United States from the date of filing Form N-400 up to the time of administration of the Oath of Allegiance;
o Be physically present in the United States for at least 2Y2 years at the time of filing Form N-400;
o Demonstrate a basic knowledge of U.S. history and government;
o Demonstrate the ability to read, write, and speak words in ordinary usage in the English language; and
o Establish an attachment to the principles of the U.S. Constitution and be disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States.
Case 1:17-cv-00433-DAD-SAB Document 1-2 Filed 03/24/17 Page 3 of 3
\t··
Statement of Facts and Analysis Including Ground(s) for Denial
On May 12, 2006, you obtained permanent resident status in immigrant classification E39. USC IS received your Form N-400 on June 15, 2015, and on September 18, 2015, you appeared for an interview to determine your eligibility for naturalization.
During your interview and review of your record, USCIS determined that you were not lawfully admitted for permanent residence. Your record reflects that on May 12, 2006, you adjusted as a Permanent Resident. On or about January 23, 1990, you entered the United States without inspection. On December 13, 1993, you were apprehended by Immigration Naturalization Service (INS) in New York. You were ordered deported on August 24, 1994. However, you failed to depart fi·om the United States. On July 7, 2005, you filed an 1-485 as an E39. On May 12, 2006, USC IS approved the 1-485. Because you never left the United States. you never fulii lied the deportation. Therefore USC IS did not have jurisdiction over the 1-485 at the time of adjustment.
To qualify for naturalization under INA 316, you must demonstrate that you meet all the requirements for naturalization including the requirement of having been lawfully admitted for permanent residence. You have not demonstrated that you have been lawfully admitted for permanent residence and, therefore, are ineligible for naturalization. See INA 318.
If you believe that you can overcome the grounds for this denial, you may submit a request for a hearing on Form N-336, Request for a Hearing on a Decision in Naturalization Proceedings, within 30 calendar days of service of this decision (33 days if this decision was mailed). See 8 CFR 336.2 (a) and 103.8(b). Without a properly filed Form N-336, this decision will become final. See INA 336.
To access Form~i]]?or if you need additional information, please visit the USCIS Web site at www.uscis.gov or call olll· National Customer Service Center toll fi·ee at 1-800-375-5283. You may also make an appointment to speak to a USCIS staff member in person at the USCIS office having jurisdiction over your current place of residence. To schedule an appointment, go to www.uscis.gov and select IN FOP ASS.
Sincerely, l\
'·~otL{att.oJ~ Jonathan Crawford Field Office Director
MC
2
Case 1:17-cv-00433-DAD-SAB Document 1-4 Filed 03/24/17 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT4
Case 1:17-cv-00433-DAD-SAB Document 1-4 Filed 03/24/17 Page 2 of 3
FEB 0 8 ·2017
Gabriela Ojeda 1000 El Camino Real Arvin, CA 93203
Dear Gabriela Ojeda:
DECISION
U.S. Department of Homeland Sccurit} l J .S. Citizenship and Immigration Sen il:..:S Fresno Ficici {?(/icc 744 P Street. Stl.!. 120 Fresno. Ct\ <>.n:! I
/~--Q~.i;~\ U.S. Citizenship :~~kj and Immigration '~~- Services · ~1tf.!~ .s~~'
A98471988 NBC 1690011030
Thank you for submitting Form N-336, Request for a Hearing on a Decision in Naturalization Proceedings, to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) on November 20, 2015. After a thorough review of the record, USCIS reaffirms the decision to deny your Form N-400 for the following reason(s).
Statement of Facts and Analysis Including Ground(s) for Reaffirming Denial
On October 24, 2015, USC IS denied your Form N-400 because during your interview and review of your record, USC IS determined that you were not lawfully admitted for permanent residence. Your record reflects that on May 12, 2006, you adjusted as a Permanent Resident.
On or about January 23, 1990, you entered the United States without inspection. On December 13, 1993, you were apprehended by legacy Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS) in New York. You were ordered deported by the immigration court on August 24, 1994. During your September 18, 2015 N-400 examination, you stated that you "never left the US since I was caught by INS in 1993." Therefore, the December 13, 1993 deportation order was never executed and you remained in proceedings. On July 7, 2005, you filed a Form 1-485, Application to Registration Pe1manent Residence or Adjust Status, requesting adjustment of status in E39 classification. On May 12, 2006, USC IS approved your Form 1-485. A review of your Form l-485 confirms that you were not intt:rviewcd prior to approval of that application. A review of all your immigration records establishes that the documents relating to your January 23, 1990 apprehension were not identified and joined to your Form 1-485 before approval of that application.
Because you never left the United States, you remained in immigration proceedings with the Immigration Court. Therefore, USC IS did not have jurisdiction over the Form 1-485 at the time of your adjustment. See Title 8, Code of Federal Regulations (8 CFR) 1245.2(a)( 1 )(i). Consequently, you were not lawfully admitted at the time USCIS granted your F01m 1-485. As an alien who was not lawfully admitted, you are inelligible for naturalization. See INA section 318.
On November 20, 2015, you filed Form N-336 and on July 20, 2016, you appeared for a hearing to review the denial ofyour Form N-400. You state that you have overcome the grounds of the denial.
Case 1:17-cv-00433-DAD-SAB Document 1-4 Filed 03/24/17 Page 3 of 3
In the written statement supporting your Form N-336, your attorney presents arguments concerning whether your status as a permanent resident has been "stripped." USCIS confirms that the notice dated October 24, 2015 was not a determination on your permanent resident status.
During your hearing on July 20, 2016, your attorney argues verbally that the instances when you have left a~d then reentered to the United States subsequent to your adjustment of status could also meet the requirement of INA section 318, since these are instances when you are admitted to the United States as a permanent resident. However, the definition of "lawfully admitted for permanent residence" exists at INA section 101(a)(20) as "the status ofhaving been lawfully accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the United States as an immigrant in accordance with the immigration laws, such status not having changed."
After a complete review of the information provided on your Form N-400, Application for Naturalization, the documents submitted in support of your application and request for hearing, and the testimony you provided during your naturalization interview and your N-336 review hearing, USC IS reaffirms the decision to deny your Form N-400. See INA section 318.
This decision constitutes a final administrative denial of your naturalization application. You may request judicial review of this final determination by filing a petition for review in the United States District Court having jurisdiction over your place of residence. See INA 3 1 0( c).
If you need additional infonnation, please visit the USCIS Web site at www.uscis.gov or call our National Customer Service Center toll-free at 1-800-375-5283. You may also make an appointment to speak to a USC IS staff member in person at the USC IS office having jurisdiction over your current place of residence. To schedule an appointment, go to www.uscis.gov and select INFOPASS.
Sincerely,
rv,~ Lynn uan Feldman Field Office Director
Andrew Fishkin, Esq.
2