Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00295/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00295-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 465
Nature of Suit: Other Immigration Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Binh Nguyen, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Eric H. Holder, Jr., et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 11-295-FRZ (GEE)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Pending before the court is a motion to dismiss filed by the defendants on September

22, 2011. (Doc. 20) 

The plaintiff in this case, Binh Nguyen, filed a petition to amend his certificate of

naturalization pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 334.16(b). The defendants move that the petition be

denied and the action dismissed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and (6).

The case has been referred to Magistrate Judge Edmonds for all pretrial matters

pursuant to the local Rules of Practice. LRCiv 72.2.

 The motion should be granted. The regulation, 8 C.F.R. § 334.16(b), has since been

repealed.

Background

Nguyen was born in Vietnam and entered the United States in May of 1991 as a

refugee pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1157. (Doc. 4, p. 3) Nguyen became a naturalized citizen in

Case 4:11-cv-00295-FRZ Document 33 Filed 04/18/12 Page 1 of 5
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 -

September of 1996. (Doc. 4, p. 4) He was issued a certificate of naturalization stating his

name and date of birth as they appear in his application for naturalization. Id. 

In his petition, Nguyen admits that he knew at the time of his naturalization that his

reported name and birth date were incorrect. (Doc. 4, p. 4) He moves that his certificate of

naturalization be amended to reflect his correct date of birth, which is some four years earlier

than the date currently appearing on the certificate. (Doc. 4, p. 2)

According to Nguyen, in 1952, his parents obtained for him a false birth certificate,

which gave his name as Binh Nguyen and made him appear four years younger than he really

was. (Doc. 4, p. 4) This was done to make Nguyen eligible to enroll in school, which he was

not able to do previously due to the 1943-53 war. (Doc. 4, p. 4) 

Nguyen attended school from 1955-1965. (Doc. 4, p. 4) He joined the Army and

subsequently became a prisoner of war during the North Vietnamese conflict. (Doc. 4, p. 4)

Nguyen eventually emigrated to the United States where he continued to represent

himself as Binh Nguyen, born in 1947. (Doc. 4, p. 4) He became a naturalized citizen in

September of 1996. (Doc. 4, p. 3) His certificate of naturalization reflects the name and

birth date that Nguyen knew was incorrect. (Doc. 4, p. 4) 

Nguyen has since obtained a corrected birth certificate. (Doc. 4, p. 5) His U.S.

passport and Arizona driver’s license now bear his correct name and date of birth. (Doc. 4,

p. 5) 

Nguyen attempted to amend his certificate of naturalization by filing Form N-565

pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1449. (Doc. 4, p. 5) His application was denied by the District

Director and by the Administrative Appeals Office because that form permits the correction

of clerical errors only. (Doc. 4, pp. 5-6) The denial notice states that only a court of law has

the authority to amend a certificate of naturalization pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 334.16. Id.

Nguyen then filed in this court a petition to amend his certificate of naturalization

pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 334.16(b). (Doc. 1) At the court’s instruction, he filed an amended

petition on May 18, 2011. (Doc. 4) The defendants move that the court deny the petition

and dismiss the action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and (6). (Doc. 20)

Case 4:11-cv-00295-FRZ Document 33 Filed 04/18/12 Page 2 of 5
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 -

On December 14, 2011, this court ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs

addressing the recent repeal of 8 C.F.R. § 334.16(b). (Doc 28); (Doc. 29, p. 3) Nguyen filed

a supplemental brief acknowledging the fact that § 334.16 was repealed and proposing a

different source for the court’s jurisdiction. (Doc. 30) Nguyen now argues this court has

mandamus jurisdiction to order the defendants to issue a corrected certificate of

naturalization pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1449. Id.

The court ordered the defendants to file a reply, which they did on March 7, 2012.

(Doc. 32)

Standard of Review: 12(b)(1)

A Rule 12(b)(1) motion challenges the court’s subject matter jurisdiction over the

claim. When analyzing a facial challenge to the court’s jurisdiction, the court accepts as true

the factual allegations contained in the complaint. Orsay v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 289 F.3d

1125, 1127 (9th Cir. 2002). Because federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, the party

invoking the jurisdiction of the court has the burden of proof. Thornhill Pub. Co., Inc. v.

General Tel. & Electronics Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir. 1979).

Standard of Review: 12(b)(6)

“A Rule 12(b)(6) motion tests the legal sufficiency of the claim.” Cook v. Brewer,

637 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2011). To be legally sufficient, the claim must allege both a

legally cognizable theory of relief and sufficient factual allegations in support of that theory.

Hinds Investments, L.P. v. Angioli, 654 F.3d 846, 850 (9th Cir. 2011).

To survive the motion to dismiss, “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right

to relief above the speculative level . . . on the assumption that all the allegations in the

complaint are true even if doubtful in fact.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,

555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007) (internal punctuation omitted). “[A] well-pleaded

complaint may proceed even if it strikes a savvy judge that actual proof of those facts is

improbable, and that a recovery is very remote and unlikely.” Id. at 556, 1965 (internal

Case 4:11-cv-00295-FRZ Document 33 Filed 04/18/12 Page 3 of 5
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

- 4 -

punctuation omitted). 

Discussion

In his petition, Nguyen claims this court may order the defendants to issue him an

amended certificate of naturalization pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 334.16(b). The court has some

doubts as to whether this regulation ever had any application to the instant case. See In re

Cheng, 2009 WL 426125, 1 (N.D.Cal. 2009) (“Under 8 CFR § 334.16, the district court can

order the amendment of a naturalization certificate issued prior to 1990 when the alleged

error is not clerical.”) (emphasis added). The issue, however, is moot because the regulation

has since been repealed. See 76 Fed. Reg. 53764-01, 53764, 53801 (Aug. 29, 2011).

Nguyen’s petition fails to state a legal theory upon which relief could be granted. See

Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The defendants’ motion to dismiss therefore must be granted, a

conclusion that Nguyen implicitly concedes in his supplemental brief, which proposes an

entirely different legal theory for relief. 

RECOMMENDATION:

The Magistrate Judge recommends the District Court, after its independent review of

the record, enter an order 

GRANTING the defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 12(b)(6).

(Doc. 20)

Nguyen’s proposed alternate legal theory will not be considered at this time, but he

should be given the opportunity to file an amended petition if he so desires. See Cook,

Perkiss and Liehe, Inc. v. Northern Calif. Collection Serv., 911 F.2d 242, 247 (9th Cir. 1991).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b), any party may serve and file written objections within

fourteen days of being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. If objections

are not timely filed, they may be deemed waived. 

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Report and Recommendation to the parties

or their counsel. 

Case 4:11-cv-00295-FRZ Document 33 Filed 04/18/12 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 -

DATED this 18th day of April, 2012.

Case 4:11-cv-00295-FRZ Document 33 Filed 04/18/12 Page 5 of 5