FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J AN 20, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 7- 15 63 1

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 5- 22 72 8- CV-J EM RAMON CERNUDA, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us DONALD NEUFELD, Acti ng Dire ct or , Mia m i Di st ric t Offi ce, Uni te d S ta te s C it iz en sh ip an d Immig rat io n S erv ic es , UNITED STAT ES CITIZENSHIP AND IMM IGRATION SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Defen da nt s- App el le es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (J an ua ry 20 , 20 09 ) Befo re BI RCH an d M ARCUS, Ci rcu itJu dg es , andFORRESTER, Dis tri ctJu dg e. *

Honora ble J
. Owen For

rester , Senior United States District J udg e for the Norther n District * of Ge org ia, sitting by

designation.PER CURI AM:

On Dec em

be r 17 , 20 05 , Ram on Cern ud a, fi le d s ui t ag ai ns t Do na ldNeuf el d, Acti ng Dire ct or , Mia m i Di st ric t Offi ce, Un it edSta te s C it iz en sh ip an d Immig rat io n Serv ic es ; t he Uni te d S ta te s C it iz en sh ip an d Immig rat io n S erv ic es ; an d the Uni te d St at es Depa rtment o f Hom el an d S ecu rit y , see ki ng de no vo rev ie w of ade ci si on by th e Ci ti zen sh ip an d Immig rat io n S erv ic es de nyin g h is ap pl ic at io n fo r
na tu ral iz at io n b as edon hi s p rev io us ex em pt io n fr om

in du ct io n i nt o m il it ary
se rv ic e in 19 69
. Cern ud a was bo rnin Cubaon Ju ne 19 , 19 47 . He ent eredth e Uni te d S ta te s wit h h is pa ren ts as atem

po rary vis it oron Octo be r 6, 1 96 0 wh enhe was t hi rte en y ears ol d. OnOcto be r 27 , 19 60 , th e Imm ig rat io n a ndNatu ral iz at io n S erv ic e ap pr ov edanap pl ic at io n t o c ha ng e Cernu da ’s vi sast atus fro m tem po rary vis it orto
no n- im m ig ran t s tu de nt . On Ju ly 23, 1 96 5, wh enhe was a tt en di ng sch oo l i n P ue rto Ri co , Cernud a reg is te redwith t he Sel ect iv e Servi ce as he was re qu ire d t o d o a s an ei gh te en -y ear- ol d. OnNov em be r 14 , 19 67 , th e Sel ect iv e Servi ce s en t Ce rnud a an Ord er t o R ep ort fo r In du ct io n. A y ear l at er, the Sel ect iv e Servi ce s en t Ce rnud a
an ot he r Ord er t o R ep ort fo r In du ct io n. Th enth e Sel ect iv e Servi ce s en t Ce rnud a two let te rs po stpo ni ng hi s i nduc ti on da te to Feb ru ary 10 , 19 69 , andMay 31, 1 96 9. Fi na ll y , th e lo cal reg is tra ti onbo ardsen t Ce rnud a a l et te r in fo rm in g h im th athi s
2ad m is si on foract iv e dut y ha d b een sch edul edfor

Ju ne 25 , 19 69 , anddi rect in g h im to rep ort t o t he Adm is si on Sta ti on at F ort Br oo ke in SanJu anon th atda te . Two d ay s p rio r to th atda te , on Ju ne 23 , 19 69 , Cernud a fi le d a n

“ App li cat io n b y

Ali enforRel ie f fro m

Train in g andServ ic e in th e Arm edFo rces ” Fo rm SSS-1 30 with h is lo cal Sel ect iv e Servi ce o ffi ce. DE66 , Exh . D. Ano ta ti on atth e b ot to m

of t he form

in di cat edth atitwas l as t re vi se d o n “ 9- 1- 51 .” Id . At th e bo tt om of the ap pl ic at io n, the re was a no ti ce re ga rd in g S ect io n 4 (a) o f Tit le I of th e Uni ve rs al Mi li ta ry

Train in g a ndServ ic e Act , as am en de d, wh ic h a dv is edin it al ic pri ntth atan y

ali enwho ap pl ie s fo r rel ie f fro m li ab il it y fortra in in g and
se rv ic e u nd er the Act “ sh al l t he reaf te r be de ba rredfro m

be co m in g acit iz enof t he Uni te d S ta te s.” Id . Ju stab ov e th e si gn atur e li ne forth e fo rm th ere was a pa rag rap h wh ic h s ta te d: I he reb y ap pl y forrel ie f fro m

li ab il it y for tra in in g a ndservi ce i n t he Arm edFo rces of t he Uni te d S ta te s. I h av e rea d t he NOTI CE gi ve n be lo w, andI un de rs ta ndth atI wil l fo rev er l os e m y rig htto be co m e a ci ti zen of t he Uni te d S ta te s, an d tha t I m ay als o b e p ro hi bi te d fr om en try int o t he Uni te d S ta te s o r it s t erri to rie s o r po ss es si on s as a res ul t of fil in g t hi s ap pl ic at io n. Id
. Cern ud a te st ifi edth athe si gn edth e fo rm be cau se alt ho ug h h e was wil li ng to fig htfor th e li be rat io n o f Cuba , he wo ul d n otserve in Viet na m . Upo n t he
reco m m en da ti on of t he lo cal Sel ect iv e Servi ce o ffi ci al , Cern ud a al so wrot e a l et te r 3to Pres id en t Ni xo n e xp la in in g h is un wil li ng ne ss to serve in Viet na m be cau se of hi s p ol it ic al be li efs . In t ha t l et te r, he st at edhe want edto lo dg e a “ firm pro te st ag ai ns t t he co m

pu ls ory recrui tm en t p ol ic y

th atth e Sel ect iv e Servi ce o f y ou r
co un try is i m

po si ng on th e y ou ng Cuba ns th atup to th is da te m ai nt ai n t he
co nd it io n o f po li ti cal ly exi le d . . . .” DE66 , Exh . C. He wenton to st at e th at al th ou gh Cuba n e xi le s h adbe li ev edth atth e Uni te d S ta te s was th ei r al ly, th e Uni te d S ta te s h adch an ge d i ts po li cy to wardth e Cas tro reg im e to a “pa in fu l rh yth m of c oe xi st en ce” a ndass im il at io n o f ex il es . Id. He co nc lu de d b y in fo rm in g Pres id en t Ni xo n t ha t h e co ul d n otgi ve up hi s co nd it io n o f “ act iv e co m ba ta ntto ach ie ve a New Cuba ” an d t hu s h e ref us edservi ce. Id
. The Sel ect iv e Servi ce ac cep te d C ern ud a’s fo rm an d c ha ng edhi s s ta tu s o n Aug us t 1 5, 1 96 9, t o C la ss IV-C, a cl as si fic at io n t he Sel ect iv e Servi ce d es cri be s as fo r “ al ie ns no t cu rren tl y

li ab le for mil it ary se rv ic e.” DE66 , Exh . L (Cern ud a’s Cl as si fic at io n R eco rd ); DE6 0, Ex h. J (Sel ect iv e Servi ce fo rm ). The n ex t co lu m n in th e Sel ect iv e Servi ce’s rec or ds sh ows th atat s om e p oi nt , Cern ud a was als o cl as si fie d a s 1 -H, DE66 , Exh . L, whic h d es ig na te s “ [r]egi st ran t n otcu rren tl y
subjec t t o p ro ces si ng forin du ct io n.” DE60 , Exh . X (cit in g 3 6 F ed . Reg . 23 37 6 (1 97 1) ). Ther e is a sc rat ch edou t d at e in th is co lu m n wh ic h app ears to be “ 11 -1
- 72 .” DE66 , Exh . L. T he fin al co lu m n o f Cernu da ’s reco rdag ai n l is ts “ 4- C” wi th
4no da te . Id. The Sel ect iv e Servi ce n ev er s en t Ce rnud a an ot he r no ti ce o f in du ct io n

aft er h e fi ll edou t Fo rm

SSS-1 30
. Cern ud a was in fo rm edon two ot he r oc cas io ns th atth e fac t h e si gn eda Fo rm SSS- 13 0 wo ul d b ar h is pa th to cit iz en sh ip . On Ma rch26 , 19 73 , Cern ud a ap pl ie d fo r pe rm an en t re si de nc e in th e Uni te d S ta te s u nd er s ect io n 1 of t he Cuba n Adju st m en t Act , 8 U.S.C. § 12 55 . The Imm ig rat io n a ndNatu ral iz at io n S erv ic e de ni edCern ud a’s ap pl ic at io n p ur su an t t o s ect io n 2 12 (a)( 22 ) of th e Im m ig rat io n
an d Nat io na li ty A ct , cod ifi edat 8 U.S.C. § 1 11 82 , whi ch pe rm an en tl y ba rs an y on e who ha s re qu es te d andrece iv edanex em pt io n fr om

m il it ary se rv ic e o n t he gro un d of ali en ag e fro m

ap pl y in g fo r pe rm an en t re si de nc y . Nex t, o n No ve m

be r 5, 1 98 4, Ce rnud a ap pl ie d fo r rel ie f un de r se ct io n 1 of th e Cuba n Ad

jus tm en t Act , whi ch , hav in g b een am en de d, n ow au th or iz edth e Im m ig rat io n a ndNatu ral iz at io n S erv ic e to gra ntcert ai n wai ve rs of e xc lu dabi li ty to al ie ns who m ig htot he rwis e b e in ad m is si bl e, in cl ud in g C ub an s wh o wer e p aro le d in to th e Uni te d S ta te s p rio r to Apri l 1 , 19 80 . The l oc al off ic e o f th e Imm ig rat io n
an d Natur al iz at io n S erv ic e g ran te d C ernud a’s ap pl ic at io n fo r a wai ve r onMay 29, 19 85 , andaward edCern ud a p erm an en t re si de nc e st atus , bu t t he no ti fic at io n t o Cern ud a in di cat edth athe wou ldst il l b e d eb arre d fr om ap pl y in g fo r ci ti zen sh ip
.

5Not wit hs ta nd in g, Ce rnud a ap pl ie d fo r na tu ral iz at io n o n M ay 16 , 20 00 with Fo rm N-40 0. Imm ig rat io n a ndNatu ral iz at io n S erv ic es is su eda de ci si on on Sep te m be r 21 , 20 01 , den y in g C ern ud a’s ap pl ic at io n b ecau se he ha d app li edfor
an d re cei ve d a n e xe m

pt io n fo r m il it ary se rv ic e b as edon hi s al ie na ge . At Cern ud a’s reque st , Cit iz en sh ip an d Immig rat io n S erv ic es , th e su cces so r ag en cy to Im m ig rat io n a ndNatu ral iz at io n S erv ic es , hel d ahe ari ng on Ju ly 27, 2 00 4. It is su edan ot he r de ci si on on Ju ne 22 , 20 05 , affi rm in g i ts de ni al st at in g t ha t Ce rnud a ha d fa il edto sh ow b y

cle ar an d c on vi nc in g e vi de nc e th athi s re qu es t fo r an
ex em pt io n fr om

m il it ary se rv ic e was no t b as edup on ali en ag e as requi redby 8 C .F.R. § 3 15 .2(a ). Cern ud a fi le d t he in st an t ac ti onon Octo be r 17 , 20 05 , pu rs ua ntto 8 U.S.C. § 14 21 (a), wh ic h p ro vi de s t ha t an in di vi du al who ha s b een de ni edna tu ral iz at io n c anap pl y to th e fed eral di stric t co urt fo r de no vo rev ie w. Dur in g d is co ve ry , Cern ud a reque st ed , andth e d is tri ctco urt o rd eredov er the ob jecti onof t he Gov ern m en t, tha t Ci ti zen sh ip an d Immig rat io n S erv ic es pro du ce th e n am es an d fi le s o f m or e th an19 5 a li en s wh o h adreque st edanex em pt io n fr om
m il it ary se rv ic e b utwere l at er n atur al iz ed . Cern ud a h adanexpe rt r ev ie w th os e fil es , andhi s co nc lu si on s fo rm a po rti on of C ern ud a’s arg um en ts with re sp ectto hi s Equa l Pr ot ect io n a ndAdm in is tra ti ve Pro cedur e Actcla im s. Th e d is tri ctco urt de ni edCern ud a’s m ot io n t o fi le a th irdam en de d c om pl ai nt . In a s ep arat e o rd er,
6th e co urt g ran te d Def en da nt s’ m ot io n fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t fi nd in g t ha t u nd er th e Imm ig rat io n a ndNati on al ity Act § 31 5( a), co di fie d a t 8 U.S.C. § 1 42 6( a), pr ov id in g t ha t “ an y

ali en. . . [wh o] ha s ap pl ie d fo r ex em pt io n . . . fro m

tra in in g o r
se rv ic e in th e Arm edFo rces . . . of th e Uni te d S ta te s o n the gro un d t ha t h e is an al ie n,” Cern ud a’s ap pl ic at io n fo r na tu ral iz at io n was ba rred
. W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f a m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t d e
no vo ap pl y in g t he same sta nd ard s t ha t g ov ern edth e d is tri ctco urt’s o pi ni on . Jo hn so n v . Boo ke r T. W as hi ng to n B ro ad cas ti ng Serv ., Inc
. , 23 4 F .3d50 1, 5 07 (1 1 Cir . 20 00 ). W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f le av e to am en d a th
co m pl ai ntforanab us e o f di sc ret io n. Be l-B el Int ’l Cor p. v . Cmty. Ban k o f Hom es te ad , 16 2 F .3d11 01 , 11 10 (11 Cir . 19 98 ). th 1 Cern ud a rai se s a n um

be r of is su es on ap pe al – wh ethe r: (1 ) th e Uni ve rs al Mi li ta ry Train in g a ndServ ic e Act(“ UMTSA”), 5 0 U.S.C. Ap p. § § 4 51 , et seq . (1 94 8) , app li edto Cernud a in19 69 ; (2 ) in te rn at io na l l aw ba rs th e co ns cri pt io n o f
On May 31, 2007, the district court denied Cernuda’ s m o t ion to file a third amende d 1 complaint. Cernuda’ s motion sought leave to add an additional Count X to his complaint, alleg ing that (1) the F orm SSS -130 that Cernuda signe d on J une 23, 1969, was obsolete bec ause it wa s the 1951 version instead of the J anuar y 8, 1969 version, and (2) Cernuda was never administered an oral oath by an individual named L eopoldo Castro, as purported on the For m SSS -130. The district court denied Cernuda’ s motion on the basis of undue delay and unfair prejudice to Def endants. The court noted prejudice to Def

endants in having to attempt to locate rec ords thirty year s old and attempt to subpoena a witness beyond the subpoena power of the court. Particularly in light of the fac t that the district court considere d these arguments in conjunc t i o n with Def endants’ motion for summary judgme nt, w e find no abuse of discretion in the district c ourt’s order denying Cernuda’ s motion t o file a third amended c omplaint. 7pa ro le es /re fu ge es ; (3 ) UMTSA’s al ie na ge ex em pt io n app li es to hi m

co ns id eri ng th e Fo rm SSS-1 30 he si gn edha d b een supe rs ed edby a new v ers io n, h e d idno t si gnth e fo rm

with i nf orm edco ns en t, an d h e d idno t o bt ai n t he be ne fitof t he ba rg ai n o f si gn in g t he form ; (4 ) Pres id en t Carte r’s pa rd on pu rs ua ntto Exec ut iv e Ord er No . 11 96 7 (J an . 21 , 19 77 ) ap pl ie s t o C ern ud a; (5) th e wai ve r gr an te d t o Cern ud a in 19 84 with re sp ectto hi s n atur al iz at io n s ho ul d a ls o app ly to h is ci ti zen sh ip ap pl ic at io n; an d (6 ) th e Gov ern m en t’s g ran ti ng of c it iz en sh ip to ot he r ap pl ic an ts in Cern ud a’s po si ti onvi ol at edhi s ri gh ts un de r th e Equ al Pro te ct io n Cl au se . Onl y

a few o f th es e m eri t d is cu ss io n. 2 Cern ud a arg ue s t ha t h is Fo rm SSS-1 30 was n otva li d b ecau se itwas s ig ne d
on anou td at edform , no on e ex pl ai ne d t he co ns eque nc es of t he form , andhe di d
no t re cei ve th e b en efi t o f hi s b arg ai n. Th ere i s n o d is pu te th atth e fo rm Cernud a si gn edon Ju ne 23 , 19 69 , was o ut da te d. Itha d b een pri nt edon Sep te m be r 1, 1 95 1

For the rea sons g iven in the district court’s thorough opinion we reje ct Cernuda’ s arguments 2 as to whether : (1) the Universa l Milit ary Training and Service Act, 50 U.S.C. App. §§ 451, et seq ., applied to Cernuda in 1969; (2) international law bars the co n s cr i p t i on of parole es/ref ug ees; (4) President Carter ’s pardon pursuant to Ex ecutive Orde r No. 11967 (Jan. 2 1 , 1 9 7 7 ) applies to Cernuda; and (5) the waive r grante d to Cernuda in 1984 with re spect to his natura liz ation should also apply to his citiz enship application. Cernuda also challeng es the district court’s denial of a hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) which provides that judicial revie w “shall be de novo, and the court shall make its own finding s of fac t and conclusions of law and shall, at the reque st of the petitioner, conduct a hearing de novo on the application.” I d. Whil e we have not yet addre ssed this issue, in Chan v. Gantner , 464 F.3d 289 (2d Cir. 2006), the Second Circuit found that the mandatory language i n § 1 4 2 1 (c) did not apply wher e the standa

rds for summar

y judgme nt would be met. I d. at 295-96.

8an d was cu rren t t hr ou gh Jan ua ry 8, 1 96 9, wh enth e Sel ect iv e Servi ce re vi se d t he fo rm . A new fo rm

was a va il ab le at t he ti m e Cernu dafil edhi s ap pl ic at io n fo r
ex em pt io n. W e fi nd , ho wev er, tha t the ne w form di d n otdi fferfro m

th e o ldform

in an y
m at eri al way . The rev is edform co nt ai ne d t he same no ti ce atth e b ot to m
co nc ern in g d eb arm en t as th e o ldform . The rev is edno ti ce d idno w sp eci fic al ly refe ren ce anad di ti on al st atut ory ba r to cit iz en sh ip – 8 U.S.C. § 1 42 6. Th e pa rag rap h abo ve th e si gn atur e li ne als o s li gh tl y di ffer edby spe ci fy in g t he ap pl ic an t u nd ers to odhe was app lying forrel ie f “ on th e g ro un d tha t I a m anali en .” DE66 , Exh . E. T he 19 51 form advi se d p ro sp ect iv e ap pl ic an ts th atth ey wou ldbe de ba rredfro m

ev er ap pl y in g fo r ad m is si on as p erm an en t re si de nt s “ un de r othe r
ex is ti ng law” whi le th e n ewer v ers io n s pe ci fie d t ha t the ex is ti ng law was sec ti on s 31 5 a nd21 2( a)(2 2) of the Im m ig rat io n a ndNati on al it y Act. DE66 , Exh . D. W

hi le th e 1 95 1 fo rm

di d n otsp eci fic al ly stat e, “ I he reb y ap pl y forrel ie f fro m

li ab il it y for tra in in g a ndservi ce i n the Arm edFo rces on th e g ro un d t ha t I a m anali en ,” as th e
ne w form di d, i t s ti ll co nt ai ne d t he ackno wled gm en t t ha t t he ap pl ic an t h adreadth e
no ti ce an d u nd ers to odth e b ar t o p erm an en t re si de nc e o r ci ti zen sh ip . DE66, Ex h. E. Cernud a can no t s ho w any preju di ce i n h av in g s ig ne d t he ol d fo rm be cau se – whi le no t i de nt ic al in lan gu ag e – itco nt ai ne d t he same warni ng s wi th res pe ctto
9fu tu re ci ti zen sh ip as the ol d fo rm . Bot h fo rm s co nt ai n t he no ti ce t ha t t he ap pl ic an t

wou ldbe ba rredfro m

futur e ci ti zen sh ip
. Cern ud a p oi nt s t o n o c as e – an d we h av e lo cat edno ne – wh ic h s up po rts hi s arg um en t t ha t a wai ve r si gn edonanou td at edform is in va li d a ndsh ou ldha ve no ci vi l co ns eque nc es . Uni te d S ta te s v . Med in a Ort a, 30 5 F . Sup p. 1 07 3 (D. P.R
. 19 69 ), was acri m in al cas e whe re the ob so le te form an d c urren t fo rm

di ffer edin
subs ta nt ia l an d m at eri al way s b ecau se th e o ldform di d n otpu t t he reg is tra nton
no ti ce o f th e p os si bl e p en al ti es he face d i n fa il in g t o re po rt f ora ph y si cal
ex am in at io n b efo re the lo cal bo ardof S el ect iv e Servi ce. Inth atcas e, th e co urt gr an te d t he de fen da nt ’s m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o f acqui tt al . Id. at10 76 . In b ot h Dan ie ls v. Ma rs ha ll , Civ il Acti on No. 1 :0 2- CV-5 88 0- AW I-SM S-P, 2 00 6 WL 12 22 97 3 (E.D. Cal . May 5, 2 00 6) , andSp ur gi n v . C.I.R., No. 1 11 96 -0 0, 2 00 1 WL 13 47 23 4 (T.C. No v. 2 , 20 01 ), th e ad m in is tra ti ve ag en cy refu se d t o a ccep t an ap pl ic at io n c om

pl et edon anou td at edform . Here, th e Sel ect iv e Servi ce Bo ard
acce pt edCern ud a’s ap pl ic at io n fo r anex em pt io n a nd , as d is cu ss edbe lo w, gra nt ed hi m th e b en efi ts of t ha t ex em pt io n. Mo se r v. Un it edSta te s, 3 41 U.S. 41 (19 51 ), rel ie d o n b y Cernud a, is cle arl y di st in gu is habl e. Ther e, th e Supr em e Co urt h el d tha t a S wis s n at io na l wh o h ad ap pl ie d fo r anex em

pt io n fr om

m il it ary se rv ic e dur in g Worl d War II was no t

10de ba rredfro m cit iz en sh ip be cau se of t he m is le ad in g c irc um st an ces of h is cas e. Id
. at41 . Mos er h adbe ensp eci fic al ly ins tru ct edby the Swis s Leg at io n i n t he Uni te d St at es th athi s ap pl ic at io n fo r ex em pt io n wo ul d n otba r hi m

fro m Am eri can ci ti zen sh ip in th e fu tu re. Id . at 4 4. Fu rth erm or e, Swit zerl an d a ndth e Uni te d St at es ha d s ig ne d atre aty whi ch de al t s pe ci fic al ly w it h t he is su e o f Swis s al ie ns in th e Uni te d S ta te s an d t he ir e li gi bi li ty for s erv ic e, an d t he si gn ifi can ce o f th is tre aty im pa ct edth e co urt’s an al y si s. Id . at 4 5- 46 . Unl ik e Mo se r, Cern ud a h as no t id en ti fie d a ny Gove rn m en t re pr es en ta ti ve who in fo rm edhi m th athe wou ldst il l b e el ig ib le forcit iz en sh ip ev enif h e si gn edth e fo rm . Fi na ll y , Cern ud a arg ue s t ha t h e d idno t re cei ve th e b en efi t o f hi s b arg ai n i n si gn in g F orm

SSS-1 30 be cau se he , infact , bec am e el ig ib le forth e draftba se d o n a
no ta ti on m ad e in hi s Se le ct iv e Servi ce fi le . W e are unpe rs ua de d. Al th ou gh a
no ta ti on do es ap pe ar i n C ern ud a’s fi le sh owi ng a ch an ge to 1-H s ta tu s o n Nov em be r 1, 1 97 2, i t i s u nd is pu te d t ha t t he on ly not ifi cat io n C ern ud a rec ei ve d fro m Sel ect iv e Servi ce was th athi s s ta tu s h adch an ge d t o IV- C upo n h is
subm is si on of F orm

SSS-1 30 . In fa ct , hi s fi le sh ows a return t o t he 4-C st atus aft er an un cert ai n p eri odof 1 -H. Cern ud a n ev er re cei ve d a n o rd er t o re po rt f or in du ct io n, t he Gov ern m en t n ev er at te m pt edto in du cthi m , andCern ud a n ev er
rece iv edno ti fic at io n t ha t h is st atus with t he Sel ect iv e Servi ce h adch an ge d. Th is
11di st in gu is he s C ern ud a fro m th e reg is trantin Ast rup v . INS, 40 2 U.S. 5 09 (19 71 ), a
cas e upo n wh ic h h e rel ie s. As trup’s re le as e fro m servi ce was on ly tem

po rary, and th e Uni te d S ta te s at te m

pt edto in du cthi m

in to servi ce af

te r he ha d s ig ne d t he Fo rm SSS- 13 0. 3 Cern ud a n ex t ar gu es th atth e d eci si on of C it iz en sh ip an d Immig rat io n Serv ic es vi ol at es th e Adm in is tra ti ve Pro cedur e Act , 5 U.S.C. § § 7 02 et seq . , be cau se itwas a rb it rary andcap ric io us . In a s im il ar v ei n, h e co nt en ds th atth e de ci si on vi ol at es th e Equ al Pro te ct io n C laus e b ecau se sev eral ot he r in di vi du al s i n Cern ud a’s po si ti on who ha d app li edforanex em pt io n wer e ev en tu al ly gran te d ci ti zen sh ip
. Sect io n 7 06 (2 )(A) o f th e Adm in is tra ti ve Pro cedur e Actall ows th e co urt t o ho ldag en cy

act io ns un la wfu l an d s etth em asi de wher e th ey

are “ arb it rary, cap ric io us , an abu se of d is cret io n, o r ot he rwis e n otin acco rd an ce wi thlaw.” 5 U.S.C. § 70 6( 2) (A). As we h av e fo un d abo ve , ho wev er, the de ci si on to de ny
Cernuda takes a pass at arguing that he did not apply for the exemption based on the fac t of 3 his aliena g e, but rathe r on the basis of his political beliefs as evidenc ed by his letter to President Richard Nix on explaining his reque st for an exemption. As the Gover nment pointed out, howeve r, the Selective Service law d i d n o t provide for an exemption on the basis of political belief. The Milit ary Selective Service Act, 50 U.S.C. App. § 456(j), provided that reg istrants could seek relief from milit ary se r

v ic e o n th e g rounds of conscie ntious objection, but this objector status was available only to those who opposed the idea of war in a ny form. Cernuda

clea rly did not, as he asse rted he wanted to fight for the liberation of Cuba. See § 456(j) (noting that “‘r elig ious training and belief’ does not include essentially political, sociolog ical, or philosophi cal views, or mere ly a persona l moral code ”). 12Cern ud a’s ap pl ic at io n fo r na tu ral iz at io n was no t i m pr op er; th us , itco ul d n otbe arb it rary andcap ric io us . Bas edon th e in fo rm at io n C ern ud a o bt ai ne d i n d is co ve ry , Cern ud a arg ue s th atth ere wer e n in e cas es of C ub anap pl ic an ts who ha d re qu es te d e xe m pt io n fr om
m il it ary se rv ic e b utha d b een na tu ral iz ed ; fo urot he rs ha d i nv ok edPres id en t Cart er’s 1 97 7 p ard on an d l at er re cei ve d n atur al iz at io n; an d fo urte enm or e who ha d be engrant eda waiv er fo r pe rm an en t re si de nc e und er 8 U.S.C. § 1 18 2( a)(2 2) Cuba n Ad jus tm en t Actpro vi si on s, an d a ls o wer e subs eque nt ly natur al iz ed
. Inhi s eq ua l p ro te ct io n c la im , Cern ud a d oe s n otoff er an y ba si s upo n wh ic h he be li ev es Cit iz en sh ip an d Immig rat io n S erv ic es di sc riminat edag ai ns t h im . At be st , Cern ud a is arg ui ng a “ cl as s o f on e” equa l p ro te ct io n v io la ti on . See Vil la ge of W il lo wbr oo k v . Olech , 52 8 U.S. 5 62 (20 00 ) (p er cu ria m) (p la in ti ffs st at e equa l pr ot ect io n c la im

wher e th ey

all eg e th ey

were i nt en ti on al ly treat eddi ffer en tl y fro m ot he r si m il arl y -s itua te d i nd iv idua ls witho utan y rat io na l b as is ). In Yo un g Apa rtments , Inc v. To wn o f Jupi te r, 52 9 F .3d10 27 (11 Cir . 20 08 ), th e Ele ve nt h th Ci rcu itst at edth atin ord er t o p ro ve cla ss of o ne equa l p ro te ct io n c la im , pl ai nt iff s
m us t s ho w “ (1 ) th atth ey

were treat eddi ffer en tl y

fro m ot he r si m il arl y

si tu at ed in di vi du al s, an d (2 ) th atDefen dantun equa ll y ap pl ie d afaci al ly neu tra l o rd in an ce fo r th e p ur

po se of d is cri m in at in g a ga in stPla in ti ffs .” Id . at 1 04 5 (q uo ta ti on an d
13ci ta ti on om it te d) . See al so Griff in Indus tri es , Inc . v. Irv in , 49 6 F .3d11 89 , 12 03 (1 1 Cir20 07 ) (“ Gov ern m en ta l d eci si on m ak in g c ha ll en ge d u nd er a ‘cla ss of o ne ’ th equa l p ro te ct io n t he ory

m us t b e ev al ua te d i n l ig htof t he ful l v ari ety of f act or s t ha t
anob jecti ve ly reaso nabl e g ov ern m en ta l d eci si on m ak er wo ul d h av e fo un d re le va nt in m ak in g the ch al le ng edde ci si on .”). Here, Ce rnud a can po te nt ia ll y sh ow t ha t h e was tre at eddi ffer en tl y th an si m il arl y -s itua te d i nd iv idua ls , bu t h e can no t s ho w th atCit iz en sh ip an d Im m ig rat io n S erv ic es un equa ll y ap pl ie d afaci al ly neu tra l o rd in an ce fo r th e pu rp os e o f di sc riminat in g a ga in sthi m . The i nd iv idua ls cit edby Cernu dawere
ev al ua te d b y

imm ig rat io n o ffi ces acro ss th e co un try. T he factth atadm in is tra to rs in cert ai n a reas m ay

ha ve m ad e err or s i n t he ap pl ic at io n o f th e reg ul at io ns do es no t
m ean th atth e co rrec t ev al ua ti on m ad e in Cern ud a’s cas e v io la te s t he Equ al Pro te ct io n C laus e. See, e.g ., Sev enSta r, In c. v. Un it edSta te s, 8 73 F.2d22 5, 2 27 (9 Cir . 19 89 ) (“ cl ai m

th atanadm in is tra ti ve ag en cy ha s m ad e d iff

eren t d eci si on s th in di ffer en t ca se s, i n d iff

eren t years, d oe s n otgi ve ris e to a cl ai m forrel ie f on equa l p ro te ct io n g ro un ds ”; “ equa l p ro te ct io n p rin ci pl es sh ou ldno t p ro vi de an y ba si s fo r ho ld in g t ha t an erro ne ou s ap pl ic at io n o f th e la w inanearl ie r cas e m us t b e rep eat edin a la te r on e”; an d “ a d eci si onby an ad m in is tra ti ve ag en cy in on e cas e do es no t m an da te th e sa m e res ul t i n e ve ry si m il ar ca se in su ccee di ng y ears ”);
14E & T Real ty v. Stri ck la nd , 83 0 F .2d11 07 , 11 14 (11 Cir . 19 87 ) (“ [m ]ere erro r or th
m is ta ke in jud gm en t wh enap pl y in g afaci al ly neu tra l s ta tu te do es no t v io la te th e equa l p ro te ct io n c laus e. Ther e m us t b e in te nt io na l d is cri m in at io n” ; “ [e]ven arb it rary adm in is tra ti on of ast atut e, witho utpu rp os efu l d is cri m in at io n, d oe s n ot vi ol at e th e equa l p ro te ct io n c laus e”) ( in te rn al qu ot at io ns an d c it at io ns om it te d)
. At m os t, the in di vi du al cas es cit edby Cernu dash ow s om e in co ns is te nc y acro ss lo cal off ic es of C it iz en sh ip an d Immig rat io n S erv ic es an d i ts pre de ces so r ag en cy , Im m ig rat io n a ndNatu ral iz at io n S erv ic es . Howev er, m ere i nc on si st en cy do es no t st at e a co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n. The bo tt om

li ne is Cern ud a ap pl ie d fo r an d was gra nt edth e b en efi ts of an
ex em pt io n fr om

sel ect iv e se rv ic e b as edon hi s s ta tu s as a Cuba n a li en . Oth er in te ract io ns Cern ud a h adwith i m m ig rat io n o ffi ci al s co nf

irmed th atwhi le he co ul d be a pe rm an en t re si de ntof t he Uni te d S ta te s, h e wou ldne ve r be eli gi bl e fo r
na tu ral iz at io n. Ce rnud a can no t n ow o ve rtu rnth e co ns eque nc es of h is de ci si on to
se ekex em

pt io n fr om

sel ect iv e se rv ic e, an d t he refo re, we AFFIR M the de ci si on of th e d is tri ctco urt.

15