Azarmanesh v. Garland

Background

Okhtay Azarmanesh, a lawful permanent resident, challenged the denial of his 2021 application for naturalization. He had received asylum as a derivative beneficiary through Moadel Shahidi’s asylum application. He applied in December 2016 to adjust his status to lawful permanent resident as Shahidi’s spouse. The couple divorced while that application was pending. USCIS approved the application in August 2017 and recorded his permanent-resident status as effective August 25, 2016.

USCIS later denied Azarmanesh’s naturalization application solely because it concluded that he was not married to the principal asylee when his adjustment application was approved. Azarmanesh also applied for adjustment based on a later marriage to a U.S. citizen. USCIS initially denied that application because he already had permanent-resident status, but USCIS later reopened and approved it, giving him a second permanent-resident card effective November 6, 2023.

Azarmanesh filed this action under the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. He sought review of the naturalization denial, approval of his application, and an order requiring officials to issue a naturalization certificate. The parties filed competing motions for summary judgment. Although the officials also referred to a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the court treated their motion as a summary-judgment motion because they submitted evidence.

Legal question

The main question was whether 8 U.S.C. § 1159(b)(3) required a derivative spouse of an asylee to remain married through the date USCIS decided the adjustment-of-status application, or whether the marriage only needed to exist when the application was filed.

The court reviewed the naturalization denial independently under 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c). It noted that a person cannot be naturalized unless the person was lawfully admitted for permanent residence under the applicable immigration laws. Because the court found that Azarmanesh’s first permanent-resident status was lawfully granted, it did not decide whether the government would have been required to rescind that status before relying on an alleged defect. It also did not need to decide whether the Administrative Procedure Act provides a separate way to challenge a naturalization denial.

Court’s reasoning

The court found § 1159(b)(3) ambiguous. The statute says that an asylee seeking adjustment must continue to be a refugee or the spouse or child of a refugee, but it does not specify how long a marriage must continue. The court considered significant that another subsection expressly requires admissibility “at the time of examination for adjustment,” while subsection (b)(3) does not expressly require marriage at the time of adjudication.

The court gave no controlling deference to the USCIS regulation or policy manual. The regulation largely repeats the statute and does not expressly say that the marriage must continue until adjudication. The policy manual states that the marriage must exist both when the application is filed and when it is finally adjudicated, but the court found that explanation conclusory and unsupported by meaningful analysis. It therefore considered the policy manual as evidence of USCIS’s interpretation but gave it no deference.

Looking at the text, structure, and purpose of the statute, the court concluded that marriage is required when the adjustment application is submitted, not when USCIS later adjudicates it. The court reasoned that imposing a later requirement would make eligibility depend on government processing time and would place a heavier burden on derivative spouses of asylees than on comparable derivative spouses of refugees. It also found that the purpose of the Refugee Act—to support the resettlement and integration of refugees and asylees—favored the narrower requirement.

Ruling and remedy

The court held that Azarmanesh’s first adjustment application was lawfully granted because he was married to an asylee when he submitted it. His later divorce did not invalidate that grant. Because his permanent-resident status had an effective date in 2016, the court concluded that he was eligible for naturalization when he applied in 2021 and when officials denied the application in 2022.

The court denied Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and granted Azarmanesh’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Reviewing the naturalization application independently, the court granted the application itself. It ordered the defendants to naturalize Azarmanesh no later than May 15, 2025, directed the clerk to enter judgment in his favor, and ordered the case closed.