Court Opinion

ID: 4285049
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-06-15 20:00:31.108234+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:18.019483
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         JUN 15 2018
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VALENTINA S. MAXWELL,                           No.    15-16520

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No.
                                                2:14-cv-02772-TLN-AC
 v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney             MEMORANDUM*
General; et al.,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Eastern District of California
                    Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted June 12, 2018**
                             San Francisco, California

Before:      RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

      Valentina S. Maxwell, a native and citizen of Russia, appeals pro se from the

district court’s dismissal of her complaint under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) requesting a

hearing on her naturalization application, for failure to state a claim. We have

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the dismissal of a

complaint for failure to state a claim. Yith v. Nielsen, 881 F.3d 1155, 1161 (9th Cir.

2018). We reverse.

      The district court erred in dismissing Maxwell’s complaint for failure to

state a claim, where the language of 8 U.S.C. § 1429 only bars the Attorney

General, and not the district court, from considering a naturalization application

when there is a removal proceeding pending against the applicant, and where

Maxwell was not in removal proceedings pursuant to a “warrant of arrest,” but

pursuant to a notice to appear. See 8 U.S.C. § 1429 (“[N]o application for

naturalization shall be considered by the Attorney General if there is pending

against the applicant a removal proceeding pursuant to a warrant of arrest issued

under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act.”); Yith, 881 F.3d at 1165,

1168 (the statutory language of 8 U.S.C. § 1429 applies only to the Attorney

General, not the district court, and thus the district court is not prevented from

granting relief under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b); § 1429 is inapplicable to applicants in

proceedings pursuant to a notice to appear, which is different from a “warrant of

arrest”). Accordingly, we reverse the district court and remand for further

proceedings consistent with this decision.

      REVERSED and REMANDED.

                                           2                                    15-16520