Hamid v. Jaddou

Background

Saleh Dawlah Hamid and Ghania Obaid are lawful permanent residents who each applied for naturalization. Along with their applications, they submitted Form N-648 medical certifications seeking exceptions from the English-language and civics requirements because of alleged physical or mental impairments.

At their interviews, immigration officers rejected the forms as insufficient and stated that they disagreed with the doctors’ determinations. The officers proceeded with, or required another opportunity for, the civics testing process. Hamid and Obaid alleged that the deficiencies identified by the officers were not real and that the officers’ reviews violated the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services policy manual, which says officers should not second-guess the medical diagnoses or explanations in these forms.

USCIS later denied both naturalization applications. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting claims under the Administrative Procedure Act and seeking federal court review of their Form N-648 submissions under 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c). The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which concerns subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

The defendants argued that any request requiring USCIS to decide the naturalization applications was moot because the agency had already denied them. The court agreed that such a request would be moot, but noted that the request appeared in the original complaint and not in the amended complaint. The court therefore considered the plaintiffs’ remaining challenge to the rejection of their Form N-648 submissions.

Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies

The court held that the plaintiffs were required to complete the administrative process before seeking judicial review. Section 1421(c) allows a person whose naturalization application has been denied to seek review in federal district court after a hearing before an immigration officer. The court explained that the Second Circuit treats this exhaustion requirement as a mandatory claim-processing rule, meaning that courts must enforce it even though it is not a jurisdictional requirement.

The plaintiffs did not dispute that they had failed to exhaust the administrative process. They argued that exhaustion should be excused because it would be futile and because their challenge concerned the Form N-648 process generally, not only the denials of their individual applications. The court rejected those arguments, concluding that the statute does not permit the court to create a futility exception and that the exhaustion requirement also applies to challenges involving the disability-exception process. The court acknowledged the plaintiffs’ allegations that agency officers may have violated agency policy but held that the plaintiffs had not stated a claim because they had not exhausted the required administrative remedies.

Disposition

Judge Cathy Seibel granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims without prejudice, explaining that failure to exhaust is often a temporary and curable procedural defect, although the court considered it highly unlikely that the agency would reopen the naturalization proceedings and provide another opportunity to exhaust administrative remedies.

The court also declined to grant leave to amend. The plaintiffs had already amended their complaint after receiving notice of the defendants’ arguments, had not requested another amendment, and had not identified additional facts that would cure the exhaustion problem. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion and close the case.