Guzman v. Barr

Background

Jose Guzman, proceeding without a lawyer, sued William Barr in his capacity as Attorney General of the United States. Guzman sought declarations that three New York drug convictions were not “aggravated felonies” under the Immigration and Nationality Act and therefore did not make him removable or ineligible for naturalization. He also sought relief concerning his naturalization application.

After Guzman filed the action, the Department of Homeland Security issued him a Notice to Appear on May 5, 2020, beginning removal proceedings. Two days later, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services informed him that his naturalization application was closed and could not be decided while the removal proceedings were pending. Guzman’s opposition to the dismissal motion also asked the court to declare him qualified for naturalization and argued that the Notice to Appear was unconstitutional. The court treated those filings as requests for additional relief because Guzman was representing himself.

Ruling on the Removal-Related Claims

The court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning authority to decide, Guzman’s claims concerning his removal eligibility. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9), legal and factual questions arising from removal proceedings must be raised through review of a final removal order rather than through a separate district-court action. Because Guzman’s removal proceedings were pending, the court ruled that he had to present his arguments about his convictions in those proceedings and, if unsuccessful, seek review through the immigration appeals process or the Court of Appeals. The court also stated that the Declaratory Judgment Act did not independently create jurisdiction.

The court therefore dismissed the removal-related claims for lack of jurisdiction.

Ruling on the Naturalization-Related Claims

The court construed Guzman’s references to naturalization as a request for a declaration that he was qualified to become a naturalized United States citizen. It held that a court could not grant that relief while removal proceedings were pending. The court noted that the Second Circuit had held that an alien could not obtain naturalization from either a district court or the Attorney General during pending removal proceedings.

The court also considered Guzman’s challenge to the constitutionality of the Notice to Appear. It concluded that such a claim could not be litigated in the district court while removal proceedings were ongoing. The court stated that the Immigration and Nationality Act required Guzman to pursue those issues through the removal process and any available later review. It ruled that the naturalization-related claims were dismissed and declined to grant leave to amend to add the Notice to Appear claim.

The court noted that it was treating the naturalization issue as jurisdictional but alternatively concluded that, if the defect were not jurisdictional, the claims would fail under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which addresses whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Disposition

The court concluded that no additional facts could change the effect of the pending removal proceedings, so amendment would be futile. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint with prejudice and to close the case.