Source: http://nc.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190626_0002682.WNC.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-03-29 05:59:44
Document Index: 549132536

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 636', '§ 1447', '§ 1227', '§ 1182', '§ 1447', '§ 1447', '§ 1429']

FindACase™ | Guzman v. McAleenan
Guzman v. McAleenan
PAULA PEREZ GUZMAN, Plaintiff,
KEVIN MCALEENAN[1] et. al., Defendants.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the “Federal Defendants' Motion to Dismiss” and “Brief in Support …” (both document #3). Plaintiff has not responded to the Motion to Dismiss and the time for filing a response has expired.
This matter has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and this Motion is now ripe for the Court's consideration.
On April 5, 2019, Plaintiff initiated this action pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), seeking a judicial determination on her N-400 Application for Naturalization. Plaintiff alleges that United States Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) failed to act on her Application within 120 days of her interview by the Agency.
In their Motion to Dismiss, Defendants allege that on May 30, 2019, the Agency issued Plaintiff a Notice to Appear (“NTA”) before the Immigration Court in Charlotte. Document #3, Exhibit A. The NTA charged Plaintiff as removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(A) for being inadmissible at the time of her adjustment of status. Plaintiff's inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) is based upon her procurement of a benefit by fraud or willful misrepresentation. Specifically, the NTA alleges that Plaintiff procured her lawful permanent resident status under Section 203 of the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act by misrepresenting that she was a citizen of Guatemala born in 1971, when she was in fact a citizen of Mexico born in 1973.
A district court may review an N-400 Application for Naturalization if USCIS does not make a determination on the application within 120 days of the applicant's interview. 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). But review under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) is limited by 8 U.S.C. § 1429, which states that “no application for naturalization shall be considered by the Attorney General if there is pending against the applicant a removal proceeding.”
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The Fourth Circuit has held that the district court lacks jurisdiction over the naturalization process when a removal proceeding is pending against the applicant. Barnes v. Holder, 625 F.3d 801 (4th Cir. 2010) (plaintiff had no statutory right to judicial review by the district court of his naturalization application while the removal proceeding was pending). See also Ajlani v. Chertoff, 545 F.3d 229, 241 (2d Cir. 2008); Zayed v. United States, 368 F.3d 902 (6th Cir. 2004); Awe v. Napolitano, 494 Fed.Appx. 860, 862 (10th Cir. 2012); ...