Saini v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ( 2023 )

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Anterjot Singh Saini, No. CV-22-01386-PHX-JJT 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, 13 Defendant. 14 15 At issue is Defendant United States Citizenship and Immigration Services’ Motion 16 to Dismiss (Doc. 19), to which pro se Plaintiff Anterjot Singh Saini filed a Response 17 (Doc. 21) and Defendant filed a Reply (Doc. 22). 18 I. BACKGROUND 19 Plaintiff, an Indian national, filed a Petition to Remove Conditions on Residence 20 (I-751) with Defendant on October 28, 2019. Although Plaintiff reports that Defendant has 21 extended the validity of his green card until April 3, 2023, he also reports an agent for 22 Defendant told him on July 19, 2022, that his I-751 Petition was denied in 2020. Plaintiff 23 claims that Defendant must adjudicate a naturalization application within 120 days after an 24 initial naturalization interview and Defendant has “denied him his constitutional rights of 25 the naturalization process.” (Doc. 1, Compl. at 3.) Plaintiff thus asks the Court to order 26 Defendant to review, process, and timely decide his application. (Compl. at 3-4.) 27 In his Response to Defendant’s Motion, Plaintiff also states he filed a Petition for 28 Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special Immigrant (I-360) with Defendant—applying in one of 1 the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) categories—at the behest of Defendant’s agent 2 in the July 19, 2022 appointment. 3 Defendant now moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil 4 Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 5 II. LEGAL STANDARD 6 “A motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) may 7 attack either the allegations of the complaint as insufficient to confer upon the court subject 8 matter jurisdiction, or the existence of subject matter jurisdiction in fact.” Renteria v. 9 United States, 452 F. Supp. 2d 910, 919 (D. Ariz. 2006) (citing Thornhill Publ’g Co. v. 10 Gen. Tel. & Elecs. Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir. 1979)). “Where the jurisdictional 11 issue is separable from the merits of the case, the [court] may consider the evidence 12 presented with respect to the jurisdictional issue and rule on that issue, resolving factual 13 disputes if necessary.” Thornhill, 594 F.2d at 733; see also Autery v. United States, 424 14 F.3d 944, 956 (9th Cir. 2005) (“With a 12(b)(1) motion, a court may weigh the evidence 15 to determine whether it has jurisdiction.”). The burden of proof is on the party asserting 16 jurisdiction to show that the court has subject matter jurisdiction. See Indus. Tectonics, Inc. 17 v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir. 1990). 18 “[B]ecause it involves a court’s power to hear a case,” subject matter jurisdiction 19 “can never be forfeited or waived.” United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 630 (2002). 20 Courts “have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction 21 exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 22 U.S. 500, 513-14 (2006). 23 III. ANALYSIS 24 This Court’s jurisdiction—or power to hear cases—is limited. Plaintiff alleges that 25 the Court has jurisdiction over his claim under 8 U.S.C. § 1447, entitled “Hearings on 26 Denials of Applications for Naturalization.” (Compl. at 1.) In that statute, Congress 27 provided this Court with jurisdiction only in the instance when “there is a failure to make 28 a determination [on an application for naturalization] . . . before the end of the 120-day || period after the date on which the examination is conducted... .” 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). 2|| Plaintiff also cites 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c), which gives the Court jurisdiction to hear disputes 3 || over the denial of an application for naturalization after a hearing before an immigration officer.! 5 As Defendant points out in its Motion, Plaintiff has not filed an application for || naturalization, otherwise known as United States citizenship. Rather, Plaintiff has filed applications to remove conditions on his legal permanent residence, or green card, by way 8 || of I-751 and I-360 Petitions. The jurisdictional statutes cited by Plaintiff, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1447 9|| and 1421, do not give this Court power to consider issues related to Defendant’s processing 10 || or resolution of applications for legal permanent residence (or conditions thereon), but only 11 || applications for naturalization. Accordingly, the Court lacks jurisdiction over □□□□□□□□□□□ 12 || claim and must dismiss his Complaint. 13 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting Defendant United States Citizenship 14|| and Immigration Services’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 19) and dismissing □□□□□□□□□□□ 15 || Complaint (Doc. 1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to close this case. 17 Dated this 7th day of April, 2023. CN iy. 19 ef folee— Unifga State#District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ' Plaintiff also cites the statute providing for diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, but that statute does not supply jurisdiction when one party is the United States or one of its agencies. -3-