Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03539/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03539-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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 District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

YASUYUKI NAGAO,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CHRISTINA POULOS, District Director,

California Service Center, U.S. Citizenship &

Immigration Services,

Defendant.

 /

No. C-06-3539 MMC

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS

(Docket No. 4)

Before the Court is defendant’s motion, filed August 17, 2006, to dismiss the instant

action pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Plaintiff has filed opposition to the motion; defendant has filed a reply. On September 29,

2006, the Court issued an order affording plaintiff an opportunity to file a surreply

addressing the applicability of 8 U.S.C. § 1429, and afforded defendant the opportunity to

file a response to plaintiff’s surreply. Plaintiff has filed a surreply; defendant has filed a

response to plaintiff’s surreply.

In the instant action, plaintiff seeks a writ of mandamus directing defendant to

adjudicate plaintiff’s petition for naturalization, which the parties agree was filed on or about

February 14, 1996. As defendant correctly argues, however, because an immigration

judge has ordered plaintiff’s removal, (see Olsen Decl. Ex. A), defendant is statutorily

Case 3:06-cv-03539-MMC Document 17 Filed 10/23/06 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

barred from considering plaintiff’s petition for naturalization. See 8 U.S.C. § 1429 (“[N]o

person shall be naturalized against whom there is outstanding a final finding of deportability

. . . ; and no application for naturalization shall be considered by the Attorney General if

there is pending against the applicant a removal proceeding[.]”); De Lara Bellajaro v.

Schiltgen, 378 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir 2004) (affirming dismissal of petition for naturalization,

pursuant to § 1429; noting “removal proceedings and final removal orders are to take

precedence over naturalization applications”) (internal quotation and citation omitted). 

Plaintiff argues that the government should be equitably estopped from relying on §

1429 because of its lengthy delay in considering plaintiff’s application for naturalization. 

Plaintiff contends that “[h]ad defendant performed its duties in a reasonable fashion with

due diligence, plaintiff would be a United States citizen and would not face the permanent

banishment that awaits him now.” (See Surreply at 2:13-15.)

Equitable estoppel “is available against a non-governmental party who has made a

knowing false representation or concealment of material facts to a party ignorant of the

facts, with the intention that the other party should rely on it, where the other party actually

and detrimentally relies on it.” See Mukherjee v. INS, 793 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1986). 

A party “asserting estoppel against the federal government bears additional burdens,”

however. See id. “First, estoppel against the government must rest on affirmative

misconduct going beyond mere negligence.” Id. (internal quotation and citation omitted). 

“Affirmative misconduct” is defined “to mean a ‘deliberate lie’ or ‘a pattern of false

promises.’” See Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1184 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc).

“Proof only that the Government failed to process promptly an application falls far short” of

establishing affirmative misconduct. See INS v. Miranda, 459 U.S. 14, 19 (1982) (finding

no equitable estoppel where government’s delay in processing petition for spousal

immigrant visa exceeded length of marriage). “Furthermore, estoppel will apply only where

the government’s wrongful act will cause a serious injustice, and the public’s interest will

not suffer undue damage by imposition of the liability.” Mukherjee, 793 F.2d at 1008-09

(finding no basis for equitable estoppel where government official provided erroneous

Case 3:06-cv-03539-MMC Document 17 Filed 10/23/06 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

3

information about requirements for permanent residence).

Here, there is no allegation that the government “deliberate[ly] lie[d]” or engaged in

“a pattern of false promises” to plaintiff, much less that plaintiff relied on any such

representations to his detriment. Consequently, there is no basis for application of the

doctrine of equitable estoppel.

Accordingly, defendant’s motion to dismiss the instant action is hereby GRANTED

and the instant action is hereby DISMISSED.

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 23, 2006 MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-03539-MMC Document 17 Filed 10/23/06 Page 3 of 3