Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-98-05179/USCOURTS-caDC-98-05179-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 

---

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Filed March 23, 1999

No. 98-5179

Alberto O. Lozada Colon,

Appellant

v.

United States Department of State, et al.,

Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 97cv1457)

Before: Edwards, Chief Judge, Sentelle and Henderson,

Circuit Judges.

J U D G M E N T

This cause came to be heard on appeal from an opinion and

judgment of the United States District Court for the District

of Columbia, Lozada Colon v. U.S. Dep't of State, 2 F. Supp.

2d 43 (D.D.C. 1998), and was briefed by counsel. The issues

have been accorded full consideration by the Court, and it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the judgment of the

District Court, denying plaintiff's request for mandamus relief, be affirmed. We agree with the District Court that

mandamus relief is inappropriate here, because 8 U.S.C.

s 1501 clearly affords the Secretary discretion to determine

whether a Certificate of Loss of Nationality should be issued.

See 13th Regional Corp. v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, 654 F.2d

758, 760 (D.C. Cir. 1980) ("[M]andamus will issue 'only where

the duty to be performed is ministerial and the obligation to

act peremptory, and plainly defined. The law must not only

authorize the demanded action, but require it; the duty must

be clear and indisputable.' ") (quoting United States ex rel.

McLennan v. Wilbur, 283 U.S. 414, 420 (1931)); accord

Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 616 (1984) (mandamus is only

USCA Case #98-5179 Document #428227 Filed: 03/23/1999 Page 1 of 2
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

appropriate if "the defendant owes [the plaintiff] a clear

nondiscretionary duty"). We also find no merit in plaintiff's

equal protection claims, raised for the first time on appeal.

In affirming, we find it unnecessary to decide whether the

plaintiff, Lozada Colon, failed to show that there was no other

remedy, save mandamus, available to persons denied a Certificate of Loss of Nationality. Accordingly, we do not address

any issues concerning the availability of judicial review for

persons denied a Certificate of Loss of Nationality, nor do we

affirm any of the District Court's views on this matter.

Matters regarding the availability of review, outside of mandamus, can be decided another day in a case properly raising

these issues.

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate

herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition

for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.

App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. R. 41.

Per Curiam

USCA Case #98-5179 Document #428227 Filed: 03/23/1999 Page 2 of 2