Adesida v. Tritten
- David Doty
- 0:20-cv-01593
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 11
In Adesida v. Tritten, Judge Doty granted in part defendants’ motion and stayed the naturalization case pending removal proceedings.
Adedayo Adesida and the USCIS officials named as defendants; Adesida’s naturalization case is paused while his removal proceedings continue.
What happened
Adesida v. Tritten involved Adedayo Adesida’s delayed application to become a U.S. citizen. He said the agency had not decided his application more than 120 days after his interview.
The government asked the court to dismiss or pause the case because removal proceedings had begun against Adesida. Adesida argued that the court still had authority to review his delayed application.
Judge Doty ruled that the court kept authority over the case but stayed it until the removal proceedings end. The order granted the government’s motion in part, and the court said it would address Adesida’s claims afterward.
The detailed version
- Adesida v. Tritten · No. 0:20-cv-01593
- David Doty
- Apr. 26, 2021
Background
Adedayo Adesida, a lawful permanent resident and naturalization applicant, filed an application to become a U.S. citizen on or about February 14, 2018. He passed his naturalization exams and other requirements, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) interviewed him on or about February 4, 2019. USCIS had not issued a final decision when Adesida filed this lawsuit.
The Department of Homeland Security began removal proceedings against Adesida in June 2020. The notice to appear stated that he had not listed one of his children on his diversity visa registration. Adesida then sued Leslie Tritten and Ken Cuccinelli in their official capacities, alleging that USCIS unreasonably delayed deciding his naturalization application. He relied on 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) and 8 C.F.R. § 335.3(a), and asked the court either to grant his application or order USCIS to decide it within fourteen days.
Jurisdiction
The government argued that 8 U.S.C. § 1429 deprived the court of subject-matter jurisdiction because removal proceedings were pending. Adesida disagreed. The court explained that § 1447(b) expressly gives a federal district court jurisdiction to hold a hearing when USCIS has not decided a naturalization application within 120 days after the interview. Section 1447(b) permits the court either to decide the matter or remand it to USCIS with instructions.
The court held that § 1429 does not eliminate the court’s jurisdiction under § 1447(b). Section 1429 restricts what the Attorney General may do while removal proceedings are pending, but it does not clearly refer to the courts or their jurisdiction. The court therefore retained subject-matter jurisdiction over Adesida’s case.
Relief and disposition
The court concluded that remanding the application to USCIS for a decision was inappropriate while removal proceedings were pending because § 1429 bars USCIS from considering naturalization applications during that period. The court noted that courts disagree about whether a district court may decide the application or grant other relief while removal proceedings continue.
Even assuming declaratory relief might be available, the court determined that the better course was to stay the case. It cited the need to prioritize removal proceedings and the possibility that factual findings in those proceedings could affect Adesida’s naturalization application, including the requirement of good moral character.
The court granted in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss or stay and ordered that the matter be stayed until further order of the court. The court retained jurisdiction and stated that it would address Adesida’s claims under § 1447(b) after the removal proceedings concluded. Judge David S. Doty signed the order on April 26, 2021.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.