Obidov v. Wolf

Background

The court’s December 11, 2019 order directed the defendants to make every reasonable effort to have Immigration and Customs Enforcement seek termination of Aziz Obidov’s removal proceedings. The purpose was to allow U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to resume deciding Obidov’s N-400 citizenship application. The court directed the agency to complete that decision by either administering the citizenship oath or denying the application.

The order also required U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to issue a notice of a motion to reopen the naturalization proceeding and give Obidov 15 days to respond if the government continued to question whether he was eligible for lawful permanent residence when his status was adjusted. The defendants were also required to file periodic status reports and to report promptly after the oath was administered, the application was denied, or any appeal was decided.

Obidov’s Request

In a January 10, 2020 letter-motion, Obidov asked the court to reopen the action, which he had originally filed under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), so that the court could administer the citizenship oath itself. He argued that the defendants had not timely terminated his removal proceedings, that the agency’s notice cited 8 C.F.R. § 335.4 instead of § 335.5, and that the government’s position in the notice was legally unsupported and intended to delay the oath.

The defendants opposed the request and argued that they had fully complied with the December 11 order. Their documents showed that the government moved to terminate the removal proceedings on December 10, 2019, and that an immigration judge granted the unopposed motion on December 18, 2019. They also showed that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services filed and served its motion to reopen the naturalization proceeding on December 30, 2019. Although the notice cited the wrong regulation, it gave Obidov 15 days to respond, and the defendants reported that he submitted a timely response.

Ruling

Judge Barbara Moses denied Obidov’s application. The court found no evidence that the defendants violated the December 11 order. It also stated that it lacked jurisdiction to decide the merits of the motion to reopen pending before U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services or to supervise the progress of the ongoing naturalization proceeding.

The court stated that, if U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services denied the naturalization application, Obidov could seek administrative review under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(a) and 8 C.F.R. § 336.2. After that process, he could seek judicial review under 8 U.S.C. § 1421 and 8 C.F.R. § 336.9. The Clerk was directed to mail Obidov a copy of the order.