UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

ALI KIA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

No. 98-2399

U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION

SERVICE,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.

James R. Spencer, District Judge.

(CA-98-170)

Submitted: March 16, 1999

Decided: March 30, 1999

Before WIDENER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Karl H. Goodman, KARL H. GOODMAN, P.A., & ASSOCIATES,

Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Frank W. Hunger, Assistant

Attorney General, Michael P. Lindemann, Assistant Director, Ethan

B. Kanter, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Ali Kia appeals the district court's order dismissing his complaint

for declaratory relief for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We

affirm.

This case involves Kia's efforts to obtain a determination of his

application for naturalization. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) (1994), a naturalization applicant who has not received a determination on his

application within 120 days of his examination for naturalization by

the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) is authorized to file

a request in the district court for a hearing. The district court "has

jurisdiction over the matter and may either determine the matter or

remand the matter, with appropriate instructions, to the Service to

determine the matter." 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b).

On October 17, 1997, the INS interviewed Kia regarding his application for naturalization. More than 120 days later, on March 27,

1998, Kia filed a complaint in the district court for declaratory judgment of his naturalization pursuant to § 1447(b). On April 15, 1998,

while the complaint was pending in the district court, the INS denied

Kia's naturalization application based upon his inability to satisfy the

English literacy requirements. On July 6, 1998, the INS moved to dismiss the complaint as moot. The district court granted the motion and

dismissed the complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).

We review dismissals for lack of subject matter jurisdiction de

novo. See Robb v. United States, 80 F.3d 884, 887 (4th Cir. 1996).

Kia first contends that the INS' failure to make a decision on naturalization with 120 days along with the filing of his complaint in the district court pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) precluded the INS from

rendering a decision on his application without a remand and order

from the district court. We agree with the district court that the plain

 2
language of § 1447 suggests the district court requires an unreviewed

application in order to make a determination, and that the INS' denial

of naturalization shortly after Kia filed suit mooted the case and

deprived the court of jurisdiction. See Sze v. INS, 153 F.3d 1005 (9th

Cir. 1998) (dismissing appeal of action brought under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1447(b) for lack of jurisdiction due to naturalization of plaintiffs

while action was pending).

Kia next takes issue with the INS' denial of his application for naturalization, challenging the determination that he failed to meet the

English literacy requirement. Because the disposition of Kia's naturalization application is not properly before the court, we decline to

address this issue.

Finally, Kia maintains that the district court erred in assuming that

upon dismissal of this action, he could appeal the denial of naturalization to the district court under 8 U.S.C. § 1421 (1994). Kia notes that

the thirty-day time frame for the initial administrative appeal has

expired and claims the INS intentionally moved to dismiss after expiration of the appeal period in order to prevent him from obtaining

relief. We find these contentions meritless. An appeal of the denial of

naturalization was indeed available to Kia, and he evidently chose not

to contest that determination. See 8 U.S.C.§ 1447(a) (1994); 8 C.F.R.

§§ 336.1-2, 336.9 (1998). Moreover, the record discloses that Kia was

properly notified of the appeal period, and that he could reapply for

naturalization at any time.

We accordingly affirm the district court's order. We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 3