Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00474/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00474-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 8:1446 Petition for Naturalization Hearing

---

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 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) allows a petitioner to seek judicial

review of a denial of an application for naturalization.

Plaintiff/Petitioner has styled his pleading as a complaint for

declaratory judgment. The proper form of pleading may be

addressed by the parties in subsequent proceedings in this case. 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOAQUIN OSCAR VASQUEZ

GUERRERO,

Petitioner,

v.

DON RIDING,

Officer in Charge, Fresno Sub Office, 

Bureau of Citizenship and

Immigration Services,

Department of Homeland Security, 

Respondent,

_________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIV-F 05-0474 AWI

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO HOLD

IN ABEYANCE

In this action, Plaintiff/Petitioner (Petitioner) seeks review of the Bureau of Citizenship

and Immigration Services (“BCIS”)’s denial of his application for naturalization. This court has

jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.1

Pending before this court is Defendant/Respondent (“Respondent”)’s motion to hold this

case in abeyance pending the outcome of Petitioner’s removal proceedings. 

Case 1:05-cv-00474-LJO Document 14 Filed 07/11/05 Page 1 of 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

2

BACKGROUND

On October 7, 1998, Petitioner was placed in removal proceedings based on a 1998

criminal conviction. These proceedings were suspended pending final determination of

Petitioner’s naturalization application.

On December 8, 2003, Petitioner filed an application for naturalization. In August of

2004, the BCIS denied the application. The BCIS found that Petitioner had failed to demonstrate

the requisite good moral character. Petitioner filed a request for a hearing regarding this denial. 

 In January of 2005, the BCIS held a hearing on Petitioner’s request, and affirmed the

denial of Petitioner’s application. After this affirmation, Respondent moved to re-calender the

removal proceedings against Petitioner. 

On April 12, 2005, Petitioner filed a complaint in this court seeking review of the denial

of his application for naturalization. On May 10, 2005, Respondent filed a motion to hold this

case in abeyance. On May 12, 2005, Petitioner filed an opposition to this motion.

DISCUSSION

The District Court reviews denials of naturalization applications de novo. 8 U.S.C. §

1421(c). Respondent contends that review of Petitioner’s naturalization application while

removal proceedings are pending would result in unnecessary litigation, and at most an advisory

opinion by the court. Respondent basis its contention on 8 U.S.C. § 1429 and Bellajaro v.

Schiltgen, 378 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2004).

Title 8 U.S.C. § 1429 provides:

 “Notwithstanding the provisions of section 405(b), and except as provided in sections

328 [8 U.S.C. § 1439] and 329 [8 U.S.C. § 1440]...no application for naturalization shall

be considered by the Attorney General if there is pending against the applicant a removal

proceeding pursuant to a warrant of arrest.” (Emphasis added).

Petitioner opposes the motion, contending that under 8 U.S.C. § 1440, the prohibition in

8 U.S.C. § 1429 does not apply. 8 U.S.C. § 1440 provides for a different standard for persons

who have served in the United States military. Such a person may be naturalized

“notwithstanding the provisions of...8 U.S.C. § 1429 as they relate to deportability.” 8 U.S.C. §

1440. While the applicant must meet all other requirements for naturalization, neither

Case 1:05-cv-00474-LJO Document 14 Filed 07/11/05 Page 2 of 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

2 The scope of judicial review may be addressed by the

parties in subsequent proceedings in this case. 

3

deportation proceedings nor a final deportation order will prevent the Attorney General from

considering the application of a veteran as described in § 1440. Bellajaro did not involve the

applicability of § 1440, but nonetheless held that district courts have jurisdiction to review the

denial of an application for naturalization whether or not a removal process is pending. Thus,

neither § 1429 nor the holding in Bellajaro prohibit the court’s review of Petitioner’s application

for naturalization while removal proceedings are pending.2

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons stated in the above Memorandum Opinion, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that Respondent’s motion to hold this case in abeyance is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 8, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00474-LJO Document 14 Filed 07/11/05 Page 3 of 3