Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01984/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01984-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 462
Nature of Suit: Naturalization, Petition For Hearing of Denial
Cause of Action: 05:702 Administrative Procedure Act

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Aditya Kumar Sharma, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

United States Citizenship and Immigration

Services et al, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-1984-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The parties have settled this case. Our order of July 30, 2012 (doc. 29) asked the

parties to explain why the defendant cannot amend the certificate of naturalization without

court intervention. We now have before us their Joint Supplemental Brief (doc. 30) which

does not answer the questions asked, but instead addresses subject matter jurisdiction. But

we have no doubt about subject matter jurisdiction. It exists under 28 U.S.C. §1346(a)(2)

and 28 U.S.C. §1361. We did not question subject matter jurisdiction. We only questioned

the role of the court in correcting certificates of naturalization. 

The defendant wants to change the certificate but believes it cannot do so unless

authorized by this court. It does not tell us why it believes it is without authority to amend

a certificate where, as here, it is satisfied that the certificate contains the wrong date of birth.

We speculate that it is deterred by 8 C.F.R. §338.5(e). If that is the case, it should amend or

repeal its regulation. 

Case 2:11-cv-01984-FJM Document 31 Filed 09/20/12 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

While 8 C.F.R §338.5(e) may be an obstacle to the defendant's authority to correct a

certificate, it, of course, is no obstacle to this court's authority to authorize correction, if that

authority otherwise exists. Agency regulations exist to guide executive branch officials in

exercising authority vested in them by statute. 

The defendant is satisfied by the evidence presented to it that plaintiff's date of birth

should be corrected. It would be irrational and arbitrary not to correct it where, as here, the

parties are in agreement. Plaintiff is "aggrieved by agency [in]action" under 5 U.S.C. §702,

and, because the defendant refuses to correct the certificate without a court order, "there is

no other adequate remedy" within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. §704. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED GRANTING the "Stipulated Motion to (i) Amend

Plaintiff's Certificate of Naturalization and (ii) Dismiss All Claims with Prejudice" (doc. 28).

It is further ORDERED that defendant is authorized to issue an amended Certificate

of Naturalization to Plaintiff correcting the date of birth from October 29, 1969 to October

29, 1972. The amended Certificate shall be issued within 17 days from the filing of this

Order. A copy shall be mailed to counsel for plaintiff. 

It is further ORDERED DISMISSING this action with prejudice, each party to bear

its own attorneys fees and costs. 

DATED this 19th day of September, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-01984-FJM Document 31 Filed 09/20/12 Page 2 of 2