Immigration — jurisdiction

Listen to this article

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Civil

Immigration — jurisdiction

When an applicant for naturalization has properly invoked sec. 1447(b) and brought an application to the district court, that court has exclusive jurisdiction over the naturalization application unless and until the matter is remanded to the agency.

“Our sister circuits who have addressed the issue have all rejected the government’s position. See Bustamante v. Napolitano, 582 F.3d 403, 406 (2d Cir. 2009); Etape v. Chertoff, 497 F.3d 379, 383 (4th Cir. 2007); United States v. Hovsepian, 359 F.3d 1144, 1164 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc). We add our voice to the chorus. Like those circuits, we start with the plain language of § 1447(b), and as they did, we find it incompatible with a system of concurrent jurisdiction. See, e.g., Bustamante, 582 F.3d at 406–07. Congress gave the district courts the power to ‘determine the matter’ once a naturalization petition is properly in front of it; it would be illogical to read this unqualified grant of power to contain an unwritten ‘if …,’ or to give USCIS the prerogative to nullify the court’s statutory power. See Id. at 406; Etape, 497 F.3d at 383; Hovsepian, 359 F.3d at 1160. Similarly, it would render meaningless the district court’s power to ‘remand the matter’ if the agency could act even without a remand. The meaning of ‘remand’ is ‘sending something (such as a case, claim, or person) back for further action.’ BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1406 (9th ed. 2009) (emphasis added); see also Bustamante, 582 F.3d at 406– 07.”

Reversed and Remanded.

12-1229 Aljabri v. Holder

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Norgle, J., Wood, J.