Manolakakis v. Mayorkas

Background

Stylianos Manolakakis sued Alejandro Mayorkas, Ur M. Jaddou, the District Director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services New York Field Office, and Merrick Garland, all in their official capacities. He alleged violations of the Constitution, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). He sought declaratory relief and an order requiring the officials to act.

Manolakakis became a lawful permanent resident in 2013. He later applied for naturalization. Although his application was approved pending the oath ceremony, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services reopened it because his prior unlawful presence had not been waived. The agency denied the naturalization application on January 6, 2020, and issued a notice to appear in removal proceedings. Those proceedings were still pending when this case was decided.

Manolakakis filed a Form N-336 requesting a hearing on the naturalization decision. His counsel submitted the request more than once, but the materials were rejected on some occasions, and a later request had not received a response. He alleged that the failure to decide the request violated the Constitution, the INA, and the APA, including the APA provisions concerning unreasonable agency delay and arbitrary or unlawful agency action. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Manolakakis did not file an opposition by the court’s deadline.

Court’s Analysis

The court first addressed the requests that would require review of matters connected to the pending removal proceedings. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9), judicial review of legal and factual questions arising from a removal action is generally available only through review of a final removal order. Because Manolakakis’s removal proceedings were pending and there was no final removal order, the court held that it lacked jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to those proceedings. The court also noted that review of a final removal order would be in the appropriate court of appeals under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5).

The court separately held that the claims concerning the N-336 failed to state a claim. Section 1429 of the INA prohibits consideration of an application for naturalization while removal proceedings are pending. Relying on that restriction, the court concluded that the defendants were statutorily prohibited from making a final determination on Manolakakis’s naturalization application while his removal proceedings continued.

The court explained that mandamus—an extraordinary remedy requiring an official to perform a clear, nondiscretionary duty—was unavailable because the defendants could not lawfully take the requested action during the pending removal proceedings. It likewise concluded that the APA provision allowing a court to compel agency action applies only to a discrete action the agency is required to take. The constitutional challenge to the delay in deciding the N-336 also failed; the court stated that such challenges should be pursued through litigation seeking to end unwarranted removal proceedings.

Disposition

Judge Denise Cote granted the defendants’ September 15 motion to dismiss. The court directed the clerk to enter judgment for the defendants and close the case.