Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01289/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01289-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles DeRosa
Respondent
Nazreth Derboghossian
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

Nazreth Derboghossian,

Petitioner,

v. 

Charles DeRosa,

Respondent.

No. CV 14-01289 PHX GMS (MEA)

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE G. MURRAY SNOW:

Petitioner, proceeding in this matter pro se, docketed a petition pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2241 on June 10, 2014. Petitioner is detained by the United States at the 

detention center in Eloy, Arizona. Petitioner docketed an “emergency” amended petition 

(Doc. 3) on June 18, 2014. Petitioner asserts, inter alia, that “The Executive Office of 

Immigration Review has no jurisdiction and authority to deport me as an American 

citizen in violation of my Fifth Amendment Due process Clause.” Respondent was 

ordered to answer the petition on August 11, 2014. See Doc. 4. Respondent, who asserts 

he is not the correct respondent in this matter, docketed an answer to the petition on 

September 3, 2014. See Doc. 9. Petitioner docketed a reply (Doc. 20) to the answer to 

his petition on December 18, 2014. 

Petitioner, Mr. Nazreth Derboghossian, was born in Syria on August 4, 1959. See

Doc. 3. See also Answer, Attach. A. Petitioner’s father Nubar Derboghossian and mother 

Zarouhi Minassian are both natives of Syria and both parents are naturalized United 

States citizens. See Answer, Attachs. B, D, E. On August 11, 1969, the former

Case 2:14-cv-01289-GMS Document 21 Filed 01/07/15 Page 1 of 7
- 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

Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) admitted Petitioner, who was then ten 

years old, his parents, and his younger siblings to the United States at New York, New 

York, as immigrants under the classification “NP1,” i.e., as “nonpreference” immigrants. 

Id., Attach. B & Attach. C.

On May 6, 1977, three months before Petitioner’s eighteenth birthday, Petitioner’s 

father Nubar filed a Form N-400, “Application to File Petition for Naturalization” with 

the INS. Id., Attach. D (Immigration Documents for Nubar) at DERICE-000019.1 On 

November 18, 1977, after Petitioner turned eighteen on August 3, Petitioner’s mother

filed her Form N-400, “Application to File Petition for Naturalization” with the INS. Id., 

Attach. E (Immigration Documents for Zarouhi) at DER-ICE-000031). On January 19, 

1978, Petitioner’s parents attended their naturalization interviews and on March 1, 1978, 

the INS scheduled them for a naturalization hearing on March 20, 1978. Id., Attach. D at 

DER-ICE-000015-18 & Attach. E at DER-ICE-000026-30. On March 20, 1978, 

Petitioner’s parents became naturalized United States citizens. Id., Attach. D at DERICE-000012 & Attach. E at DER-ICE-000023. Petitioner was, therefore, eighteen years 

and seven months old when his parents were naturalized on March 20, 1978. 

On September 26, 2012, Petitioner was convicted by the Maricopa County 

Superior Court on one count of fraudulent schemes and artifices, a class 2 felony, in 

violation of section 13-2310 of the Arizona Revised Statutes; one count of illegal control 

of an enterprise, a class 3 felony, in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-2312; and 

one count of forgery, a class 4 felony, in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-2002. 

Id., Attach. F. Petitioner was sentenced to, inter alia, one year of incarceration and three 

years of probation. The court also ordered Petitioner to pay $1,430,428.22 in restitution 

to his victims.

 

1

In his habeas petition Petitioner asserts that his parents applied for citizenship when 

Petitioner was sixteen years of age and that the adjudication of their petitions for citizenship took 

“almost” two years and then an additional eight months passed before they could be sworn-in as 

citizens. Doc. 3 at 4. Petitioner asserts that he “automatically” because a citizen because he was 

a lawful permanent resident at the time his parents were naturalized and because their 

applications for naturalization were approved prior to the date he became eighteen years of age..

Case 2:14-cv-01289-GMS Document 21 Filed 01/07/15 Page 2 of 7
- 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

On September 27, 2013, Petitioner was released from the custody of the Maricopa 

County Sheriff’s Office to the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement

(“ICE”). Id., Attach. G, Warrant for Arrest of Alien. On that same day, ICE issued a 

Notice to Appear, charging Petitioner with removability under section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii)2 

of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“the Act”), as an alien, who any time after 

admission, has been convicted of an aggravated felony as defined by section 

101(a)(43)(R) of the Act, an offense relating to commercial bribery, counterfeiting, 

forgery, or trafficking in vehicles the identification numbers of which have been altered, 

for which the term of imprisonment is at least one year. Id., Attach. H, Notice to Appear.

On September 27, 2013, Petitioner was transferred to the Eloy Detention Center 

for removal proceedings. He was detained without bond pursuant to section 236(c) of the 

Act. Id., Attach. I.

On or about October 4, 2013, the government withdrew the initial charge of 

removability under section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Act and charged Petitioner as an alien 

who, at any time after admission, has been convicted of an aggravated felony as defined 

in section 101(a)(43)(M) of the Act, an offense that involves fraud or deceit in which the 

loss to the victim or victims exceeds $10,000. See id., Attach. J. On or about December 

4, 2013, the government additionally charged Petitioner with removability based on an 

allegation that he had been convicted of two crimes involving moral turpitude not arising 

out of a single scheme of criminal misconduct. Id., Attach. K. On April 10, 2014, an 

Immigration Judge (“IJ”) conducted a bond hearing pursuant to Rodriguez v. Robbins, 

715 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2013). Id., Attach. l. On April 15, 2014, the IJ issued an order 

denying Petitioner’s request for a change in custody status. Id., Attach I Petitioner 

reserved appeal but has not appealed the IJ’s decision.

On or about May 8, 2014, Petitioner submitted a motion for a second bond

redetermination hearing. Id., Attach. M, On May 15, 2014, the IJ denied Petitioner’s 

motion for a second bond redetermination hearing. Id., Attach. N. Petitioner has not 

appealed the IJ’s bond decision.

Case 2:14-cv-01289-GMS Document 21 Filed 01/07/15 Page 3 of 7
- 4 -

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

On May 19, 2014, at a removal hearing before the IJ, Petitioner claimed that he 

had derived United States citizenship through his naturalized United States citizen 

parents. Id., Attach. O. On May 20, 2014, ICE’s Office of Enforcement and Removal 

Operations (“ERO”), interviewed Petitioner in conjunction with his citizenship claim and 

obtained a sworn statement from him. Id., Attach. P (Affidavit of Petitioner). Petitioner

admitted he had taken no steps to become naturalized. Id., Attach. P at DER-ICE-000093.

On July 29, 2014, Petitioner’s attorney filed a Motion for Administrative Closure 

with the IJ. Id., Attach. Q. Counsel argued that the proceedings should be 

administratively closed so that Petitioner could file a Form N-600, “Application for 

Certificate of Citizenship.” Id., Attach. Q. In the motion Petitioner acknowledged that he 

is not legally eligible to derive citizenship through his naturalized United States citizen 

parents under former section 321 of the Act because he was over the age of eighteen 

years when they naturalized. Id., Attach. Q at DER-ICE-000097. Petitioner indicated that 

he intended to file a Form N-600 with United States Citizenship and Immigration 

Services (“USCIS”) seeking declaratory action based on the argument that there was an 

unreasonable delay in processing his parents’ Form N-400s, which he believed were filed 

in 1976. Petitioner argued that, but for this delay, his parents would have become 

naturalized United States citizen prior to his eighteenth birthday. Id., Attach. Q at DERICE-000096-97. Id., Attach. Q.

On August 19, 2014, the Department filed an opposition to Petitioner’s Motion for 

Administrative Closure, arguing that Petitioner was not likely to succeed on his N-600 

application because (1) his parents delayed in applying to naturalize after they became 

eligible to do so in August of 1974, and (2) that the Department believed that INS timely 

adjudicated their applications, as the entire process only took approximately nine months. 

Id., Attach. R.

On August 25, 2014, Petitioner appeared at a master calendar hearing with his 

counsel. The Department served Petitioner with his mother’s naturalization documents 

obtained from her alien file at the National Records Center (NRC) on August 22, 2014. 

Case 2:14-cv-01289-GMS Document 21 Filed 01/07/15 Page 4 of 7
- 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

See id., Attach. E. Petitioner’s counsel requested time to review these documents, and the 

IJ therefore reset the matter to September 16, 2014. On August 29, 2014, ICE’s Office of 

Chief Counsel (OCC) received Petitioner’s father’s naturalization documents from the 

National Records Center. See id., Attach. D.

At this time, the government has initiated removal proceedings against Petitioner, 

and Petitioner is in custody, however, no order of removal has been entered. On May 19, 

2014, at a hearing before an IJ, Petitioner raised the claim that he had derived United 

States citizenship when his parents were naturalized. Id., Attach. O. Parallel to the 

removal proceeding, Petitioner filed the instant habeas petition, asking the Court to 

intervene in determining Petitioner’s citizenship. Petitioner contends this Court should 

decide if he is entitled to naturalization because his citizenship status bears on his 

detention or release during his removal proceedings. 

Noting, inter alia, that Petitioner has counsel in his removal proceedings but is pro 

se in this matter, Respondent argues that “Petitioner should be required to first exhaust 

his administrative remedies,” citing Leonardo v. Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157, 1160 (9th Cir. 

2011), while acknowledging that in Flores-Torres v. Mukasey, 548 F.3d 708, 710 (9th 

Cir. 2008), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that notwithstanding the provisions of 

8 U.S.C. § 1252 with regard to jurisdiction, the District Court could exercise jurisdiction 

over a petitioner’s claim to citizenship because the claim was not judicial review of a 

final order of removal. The exercise of jurisdiction over such a claim is a matter within 

the Court’s discretion. See Puga v. Chertoff, 488 F.3d 812, 815 (9th Cir. 2007). 

“Furthermore, this Court can offer no more relief to Petitioner than what is available to 

him administratively; indeed, Petitioner is offered greater relief through the 

administrative process. Whereas this Court may only decide the fact of Plaintiff’s 

citizenship, it cannot make a determination as to his removal.” Answer at 8.

Respondent further asserts:

Should this Court decline to require prudential exhaustion, Petitioner’s 

claim that he is a U.S. citizen should be denied as frivolous. The applicable 

law for transmitting citizenship to a child born abroad is the statute that was 

Case 2:14-cv-01289-GMS Document 21 Filed 01/07/15 Page 5 of 7
- 6 -

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 effect at the time of the child’s birth. United States v. ViramontesAlvarado, 149 F.3d 912, 915 (9th Cir. 1998). Former section 321(a) of the 

Immigration Act, as amended by the 1978 Amendments, provided in 

pertinent part that a child born outside of the United States automatically 

acquired citizenship if:

(1) Both parents were naturalized;

(2) Such naturalization took place while the child was under the age of

eighteen years; and

(3) The child was residing in the United States in the legal and physical

custody of the citizen parent pursuant to a lawful admission for permanent

residence.

Id. at 9.

Respondent is correct that Petitioner does not meet the statutory requirements for 

citizenship. Petitioner was born in Syria on August 4, 1959, and turned 18 years old on 

August 4, 1977. See Answer, Attach. B. Petitioner’s parents became naturalized citizens 

on March 29, 1978. Id., Attach. D at DER-ICE-000012 & E at DER-ICE-000023. 

Accordingly, Petitioner does not meet the predicates for automatic citizenship through his 

parents’ naturalization. In a motion to the Immigration Court, Petitioner acknowledged 

that “the naturalization of [his] parents was not recognized until March 20, 1978. By this 

time, the [Petitioner] was already eighteen (18) years old.” Id., Attach. Q at DER-ICE000097. Although the INS approved his parents’ applications to become naturalized 

citizens prior to Petitioner’s majority, this act is not sufficient to fulfill the requirements 

to become a citizen, which includes a public oath. See, e.g., Okafor v. Gonzales, 456 

F.3d 531, 534 (5th Cir. 2006); Abiodun v. Gonzales, 461 F. 3d 1210, 1216 (10th Cir. 

2006).

Petitioner asserts that his parents submitted their applications for naturalization in 

1976 and, accordingly, that there was an unreasonable delay in the adjudication of those

applications which should be construed in his favor and, therefore, that equitable 

consideration would allow him to achieve citizenship. However, the record evidence 

indicates that the applications for citizenship were filed in 1977 and, therefore, 

Petitioner’s argument regarding equitable entitlement to adjustment of his status are 

predicated on an incorrect assertion of fact.

Case 2:14-cv-01289-GMS Document 21 Filed 01/07/15 Page 6 of 7
- 7 -

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

Accordingly,

IT IS RECOMMENDED that the section 2241 motion be denied and the matter 

dismissed with prejudice.

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of 

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the District Court’s judgment.

Pursuant to Rule 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties shall have 

fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within 

which to file specific written objections with the Court. Thereafter, the parties have 

fourteen (14) days within which to file a response to the objections. Pursuant to Rule 7.2, 

Local Rules of Civil Procedure for the United States District Court for the District of 

Arizona, objections to the Report and Recommendation may not exceed seventeen (17) 

pages in length.

Failure to timely file objections to any factual or legal determinations of the 

Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party’s right to de novo appellate 

consideration of the issues. See United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th 

Cir. 2003) (en banc). Failure to timely file objections to any factual or legal 

determinations of the Magistrate Judge will constitute a waiver of a party’s right to 

appellate review of the findings of fact and conclusions of law in an order or judgment 

entered pursuant to the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.

Dated this 7th day of January, 2015.

Case 2:14-cv-01289-GMS Document 21 Filed 01/07/15 Page 7 of 7