Abdelgalel v. Holder , 398 F. App'x 472 ( 2010 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-10680 SEPT 30, 2010
Non-Argument Calendar JOHN LEY
CLERK
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:08-cv-01106-HES-JRK
WAIL M. ABDELGALEL,
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ERIC HOLDER,
SECRETARY MICHAEL CHERTOFF,
ROSEMARY MELVILLE,
JONATHAN SCHARFEN,
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(September 30, 2010)
Before HULL, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Wail M. Abdelgalel appeals the district court’s order denying (1)
his motion to confirm his naturalization and oath of citizenship administered by
the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) and (2) his
motion for attorneys fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28
U.S.C. § 2412(d). After review, we affirm the district court’s denial of the motion
to confirm, but reverse the district court’s denial of the motion for attorneys fees
and remand for further consideration consistent with this opinion.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Application for Naturalization
In 2000, Abdelgalel, who was born in Egypt, became a lawful permanent
resident of the United States. In April 2005, Abdelgalel filed an application for
naturalization with the USCIS. Abdelgalel passed the English language and
history tests. On January 23, 2006, an immigration officer interviewed
Abdelgalel. Over two years later, the USCIS had not acted on Abdelgalel’s
application.
B. Abdelgalel’s § 1447(b) Complaint
Section 1447(b) of Title 8 permits an applicant for naturalization to request
a hearing in the district court if the government fails to make a determination
within 120 days of the examination conducted on the application. 8 U.S.C. §
21447(b). Under § 1447(b), the district court “has jurisdiction over the matter and
may either determine the matter or remand the matter, with appropriate
instructions, to the Service to determine the matter.” Id.
In June 2008, Abdelgalel filed this action in the district court pursuant to
§ 1447(b). Abdelgalel asked the district court either to naturalize him as permitted
by § 1447(b) or, in the alternative, to enter an order requiring the USCIS to
adjudicate his application. Abdelgalel also requested attorneys fees and costs
under the EAJA. Abdelgalel’s action named as defendants: Michael B. Mukasey,
the Attorney General of the United States; Michael Chertoff, the Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security; Jonathan Scharfen, the Acting Director of the
USCIS; and Rosemary Melville, the Director of the Atlanta Office of the USCIS
(“the government defendants”).1
C. Defendants’ Motion to Remand
In response, the government defendants filed a motion to remand the case to
the USCIS, stating that they needed additional time to complete a background
investigation. The government defendants asked for 120 days to finish the
1
During the course of the litigation, Eric Holder was substituted for Michael Mukasey as
the Attorney General for the United States and Janet Napolitano was substituted for Michael
Chertoff as the Secretary for the Department of Homeland Security pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 25(d).
3
investigation and adjudicate Abdelgalel’s application. According to an affidavit
attached to the motion to remand, USCIS had re-interviewed Abdelgalel on April
2, 2009 and additional investigation was needed based on unspecified information
Abdelgalel provided at that time.
Abdelgalel opposed remand, arguing that all necessary background checks
already had been completed and the government defendants had not identified any
public safety or national security reason for further investigation. Abdelgalel
contended that the government had acted in bad faith and asked the district court
to adjudicate his application.2 Alternatively, if the district court was inclined to
remand, Abdelgalel asked the court to “[e]nter an order, specifically a writ of
mandamus, requiring Defendants to adjudicate Plaintiff’s Form N-400,
Application for Naturalization within a specific time period . . . .” Abdelgalel also
renewed his request for attorneys fees and costs under the EAJA.
D. Remand Order and Writ of Mandamus
On June 19, 2009, the district court entered an “Order and Writ of
Mandamus” granting the government defendants’ motion for remand. The district
2
Abdelgalel stated that, after he filed this action, the USCIS sent him (but not his counsel
of record) notification to appear for English language and history tests, despite the fact that he
had already taken and passed these tests. According to Abdelgalel, when he appeared as
directed, he was not given the tests, but instead interrogated by federal agents without his
attorney present.
4
court noted that it was “not wholly convinced that USCIS has been as diligent as it
maintains” in addressing Abdelgalel’s application and that it was “concerned by
the ‘bad faith’ arguments” raised by Abdelgalel. Nonetheless, for reasons of
economy, the district court concluded that remand was the appropriate relief.
However, the district court granted Abdelgalel’s request for a definitive
deadline for adjudication. Specifically, the district court directed the government
defendants to adjudicate Abdelgalel’s application “within NINETY (90) days of
the issuance of this Writ. If Plaintiff’s application is not adjudicated by this date,
this Court, upon proper motion, will schedule a status conference and, at that time,
may choose to exercise jurisdiction over this matter.” The court-imposed ninety-
day deadline was September 17, 2009.
The district court stayed Abdelgalel’s motion for attorneys fees under the
EAJA. The district court concluded that Abdelgalel had not yet satisfied the
“prevailing party” requirement of the statute, but noted that, if USCIS failed to
comply with the court’s order, Abdelgalel’s motion for attorneys fees might be
revisited.
On July 30, 2009, within the court’s ninety-day time frame, the USCIS
approved Abdelgalel’s application for naturalization. However, as of September
17, 2009, Abdelgalel still had not been administered the oath of citizenship. On
5
that date, Abdelgalel filed a status report with the district court, advising the court
of this fact and asking the court to administer the oath of citizenship. Abdelgalel
again requested attorneys fees under the EAJA. On September 23, 2009,
Abdelgalel attended the USCIS’s naturalization ceremony, was administered the
oath of citizenship and became a United States citizen.
E. Motion for Attorneys Fees and Costs
Shortly thereafter, Abdelgalel filed a motion for attorneys fees under the
EAJA. Abdelgalel argued that he was a “prevailing party” under the EAJA
because the district court (1) had granted his request to issue a writ of mandamus
directing the USCIS to adjudicate his application within a specified time and (2)
had remained ready to assert jurisdiction over the matter if the USCIS had failed to
do so. Because Abdelgalel had obtained the relief he sought (the prompt
adjudication of his application on remand), he asked the district court to lift the
stay and award him attorneys fees and costs. The government defendants opposed
the motion for attorneys fees and also moved to dismiss Abdelgalel’s action as
moot, arguing that USCIS had “voluntarily adjudicated” Abdelgalel’s application.
F. Motion to Confirm Naturalization
Abdelgalel also filed a “Motion to Confirm Naturalization Process.”
Abdelgalel argued the USCIS no longer had jurisdiction when it administered his
6
oath of citizenship because jurisdiction had automatically reverted to the district
court after the ninety-day deadline expired. Abdelgalel contended that his
citizenship was in question and asked the district court to confirm his
naturalization and administration of the oath of citizenship.
The government defendants argued that Abdelgalel’s concerns about his
citizenship were baseless because, under the terms of the district court’s prior
order, the USCIS had jurisdiction when the oath was administered. The
government defendants emphasized that there was no provision under immigration
law for a district court to “confirm” citizenship.
G. Dismissal Order
The district court denied Abdelgalel’s motion for attorneys fees under the
EAJA, concluding that he was not a “prevailing party.” The district court also
denied Abdelgalel’s motion for confirmation, finding that, because Abdelgalel was
now a naturalized citizen, there was “no reason to re-exercise jurisdiction over this
matter.” Noting that all matters had been resolved, the district court granted the
government’s motion to dismiss the action as moot. Abdelgalel filed this appeal.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Motion to Confirm Naturalization
7
The district court denied Abdelgalel’s motion for confirmation of
naturalization. The district court explained that, because Abdelgalel was a
naturalized citizen, it had no reason to “re-exercise” jurisdiction. We find no
reversible error in this ruling.
The district court obtains jurisdiction over a naturalization application when
an applicant files an action under § 1447(b) and shows that the USCIS has not
made a determination within 120 days of the examination. 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). At
this point, the district court has two options; it can either determine the matter
itself or remand the matter to the USCIS for a determination. Id.Here, the district court remanded to the USCIS. By the terms of the district
court’s remand order, the USCIS had jurisdiction to make a determination as to
Abdelgalel’s application. Although the district court ordered the USCIS to
adjudicate the application within ninety days, the district court did not condition
the agency’s continued jurisdiction on compliance with that deadline. Instead, the
district court stated that, upon subsequent motion from Abdelgalel, it “may choose
to exercise jurisdiction over this matter” if the application was not adjudicated by
September 17, 2009.
Thus, under the terms of the remand order, jurisdiction did not revert back
to the district court automatically on September 17, 2009, even if the USCIS had
8
failed to adjudicate Abdelgalel’s application by that date. Abdelgalel first would
have had to move the court for a status conference, at which time he would have
had to ask the court to reassert jurisdiction, and the district court would have had
to grant that request. None of these events took place.
Furthermore, the USCIS did adjudicate Abdelgalel’s application before the
September 17, 2009 deadline. It is undisputed that Abdelgalel’s application was
approved on July 30, 2009. Since the USCIS complied with the court’s remand
order, the USCIS retained jurisdiction over Abdelgalel’s naturalization process
when it administered the oath of citizenship to Abdelgalel. Because Abdelgalel’s
jurisdictional argument lacks merit, the district court properly denied Abdelgalel’s
motion for confirmation.3
B. Attorneys Fees under the EAJA
Under the EAJA, the district court “shall award to a prevailing party” fees
and other expenses “incurred by that party in any civil action . . . unless the court
finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or that
3
Abdelgalel stresses that courts disagree as to whether a district court’s remand under
§ 1447(b) vests exclusive jurisdiction in the agency or concurrent jurisdiction with the district
court. We need not address this issue. Regardless of whether there was concurrent or exclusive
jurisdiction in the agency, it is clear, under the district court’s particular remand order here and
the undisputed facts of this case, that the USCIS still had jurisdiction to proceed with the
naturalization process after September 17, 2009. We also need not and do not address the
government’s alternative argument that immigration law does not authorize a district court to
confirm naturalization.
9
special circumstances make an award unjust.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). In
Buckhannon Board and Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health
and Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598, 121 S. Ct. 1835 (2001), the Supreme Court
explained that the term “prevailing party” is a term of art that refers to one who
has received “at least some relief on the merits of his claims.” Id. at 603, 121 S.
Ct. at 1840 (quotation marks omitted). The Supreme Court explained that
“enforceable judgments on the merits and court-ordered consent decrees create
‘the material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties’ necessary to permit
an award of attorney’s fees.” Id.; see also Morillo-Cedron v. District Director for
the U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 452 F.3d 1254, 1258 (11th Cir. 2006).
In Buckhannon, the Supreme Court rejected the “catalyst theory” for awarding
attorneys fees, under which a plaintiff is a “prevailing party” if he “achieves the
desired result because the lawsuit brought about a voluntary change in the
defendant’s conduct.” Buckhannon, 532 U.S. at 601, 605, 121 S. Ct. at 1838,
1840. The Supreme Court explained that “[a] defendant’s voluntary change in
conduct, although perhaps accomplishing what the plaintiff sought to achieve by
the lawsuit, lacks the necessary judicial imprimatur on the change.” Id. at 605,
121 S. Ct. at 1840.
10
In sum, under Buckhannon, to be a prevailing party eligible for an award of
attorneys fees, the plaintiff must show both a “material alteration of the legal
relationship” of the parties and that the change is “judicially sanctioned.”
Buckhannon, 532 U.S. at 604-05, 121 S. Ct. at 1840; Morillo-Cedron, 452 F.3d at
1258; Am. Disability Ass’n, Inc. v. Chmielarz, 289 F.3d 1315, 1319 (11th Cir.
2002). Although “either a judgment on the merits or a consent decree clearly are
sufficient to make the plaintiff a ‘prevailing party,’ the essential test established by
the Court [in Buckhannon] requires the plaintiff to achieve a ‘judicially sanctioned
change in the legal relationship of the parties.’” Am. Disability Ass’n, Inc. v.
Chmielarz, 289 F.3d 1315, 1319-20 (11th Cir. 2002) (quoting in part Buckhannon,
532 U.S. at 605, 121 S. Ct. at 1840, and concluding that a district court’s dismissal
order approving a settlement and retaining jurisdiction to enforce its terms
establishes a “judicially sanctioned change in the legal relationship of the parties”
because the plaintiff “may return to court to have the settlement enforced”).
C. Eleventh Circuit’s Morillo-Cedron
In Morillo-Cedron, this Court concluded that Buckhannon applies to the
fee-shifting provisions of the EAJA. Morillo-Cedron, 452 F.3d at 1258.
Additionally, Morillo-Cedron provides guidance here because it also arose in the
context of the USCIS’s delay in processing an immigration application.
11
In Morillo-Cedron, the Administrative Office of Appeals ordered the
District Director of the USCIS to act on the plaintiffs’ applications for lawful
permanent residency. Id. at 1255. When the USCIS timely failed to do so, the
plaintiffs filed an action under the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361, and the
Administrative Procedures Act. The plaintiffs also sought attorneys fees and costs
under the EAJA. Id. The district court issued a show cause order “why the
mandamus relief requested should not be granted.” Id.The USCIS then “voluntarily granted lawful permanent resident status” to
some of the plaintiffs, referred to as the “adjusted plaintiffs,” and scheduled
interviews with the remaining plaintiffs, referred to as the “non-adjusted
plaintiffs.” Id. & nn. 1, 2. The district court issued an interim order requiring the
USCIS to “proceed on the plaintiffs’ voluntary adjustment status” and later denied
the request for mandamus relief and dismissed the complaint. Id. However, the
district court awarded the plaintiffs attorneys fees and costs under the EAJA. Id.The district court relied on the catalyst theory, concluding that the adjusted
plaintiffs were prevailing parties because plaintiffs’ action caused the government
to process their applications. Id.This Court reversed the award under the EAJA. Applying Buckhannon, we
concluded that the plaintiffs were not “prevailing parties.” Id. at 1258. We
12
explained that, under Buckhannon, “a ‘prevailing party’ is one who has been
awarded some relief by the court; i.e., some court-ordered change in the legal
relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant,” and that a defendant’s
voluntary change in conduct “‘lacks the necessary judicial imprimatur on the
change.’” Id. at 1257 (quoting Buckhannon, 532 U.S. at 604-05, 121 S. Ct. at
1840). This Court concluded that the plaintiffs did not satisfy the prevailing party
requirement because they did not litigate the case to final judgment, stating:
[W]e hold the plaintiffs here are not “prevailing parties.” The record
demonstrates that they did not litigate to judgment the District
Director’s failure to abide by the AAO rules and process their
applications. In other words, the plaintiffs did not obtain a court-
ordered change in the legal relationship between them and the
Government; they did not obtain relief on the merits of their claim.
The Government voluntarily processed their applications and
conducted interviews before the district court entered any final
judgment. Moreover, the district court granted the Government’s
motion to dismiss because the case was moot.
Id. at 1258.
D. Other Circuits
No Circuit has addressed the precise circumstances presented here, that is, a
remand order with specific instructions to adjudicate a naturalization application
within a specific period of time. The closest case we could find is Al-Maleki v.
Holder, 558 F.3d 1200 (10th Cir. 2009), but there the district court actually
13
adjudicated the application itself and the Tenth Circuit then concluded that the
plaintiff was a prevailing party.
More specifically, in Al-Maleki, the district court denied the government’s
motion for an unrestricted remand, held a hearing and then ordered the
government to answer the complaint. 558 F.3d at 1203. In its answer, the
government represented that the background check had been completed and
approval of Al-Maleki’s application was likely. Id. Thereafter, the parties filed a
joint motion for remand so the oath of citizenship could be administered by July
18, 2007. Id. The district court granted the motion and instructed the USCIS to
administer the oath of citizenship by July 18, 2007. Id.The Tenth Circuit concluded that Al-Maleki was a prevailing party because
the district court’s remand order “granted Al-Maleki substantive relief on the
merits of the claims raised in his § 1447(b) action.” Id. at 1206. The Tenth
Circuit explained that the district court’s order resolved Al-Maleki’s claims by
“concluding he was entitled to be naturalized and ordering USCIS to administer
the oath on a date certain.” Id. As a consequence, “[t]he order . . . also provided
the judicial imprimatur which is indispensable to the prevailing party
determination.” Id. The Tenth Circuit rejected the argument that the USCIS
voluntarily naturalized Al-Maleki, explaining that “[e]ntry of the order, not
14
USCIS’s stipulation, was the action which indelibly altered the legal landscape
between USCIS and Al-Maleki.” Id. (quotation marks and alterations omitted).
On yet another set of circumstances, the First Circuit has concluded that a
§ 1447(b) plaintiff was not a prevailing party under the EAJA. In Aronov v.
Napolitano, the parties voluntarily settled the dispute before the government
responded to Aronov’s complaint. 562 F.3d 84, 87 (1st Cir. 2009) (en banc). The
parties then filed a joint motion to remand stating that the USCIS would grant
Aronov’s application, and the oath would be given no later than November 8,
2006. Id. The parties asked the district court to remand so that these actions could
be taken. Id. The district court entered a single-line electronic order on the docket
granting the motion to remand, but gave no instructions to the government. Id.The First Circuit concluded that this electronic order was not a judgment on
the merits or the “functional equivalent of a consent decree.” Id. at 90. Rather,
the First Circuit explained that the remand order “did not meet the judicial
imprimatur standards” because it “lacked all of the core indicia of a consent
decree.” Id. at 92. The order (1) “did not order USCIS to do anything”; (2) “made
no evaluation at all of the merits of the controversy” given that the government
had not even answered the complaint and the parties had merely asked the court to
dismiss the action; (3) “did not contain provisions for future enforcement typical
15
of consent decrees”; and (4) “merely returned jurisdiction to the agency to allow
the parties to carry out their [private] agreement.” Id.E. District Court’s Remand
This case falls in between the Tenth Circuit’s Al-Maleki decision and the
First Circuit’s Aronov decision. Here, the district court’s remand order actually
granted Abdelgalel’s request for a writ of mandamus and directed the USCIS to
adjudicate the application within a specific, narrow period of time, i.e., within
ninety days. This is one of the two forms of relief authorized under § 1447(b).
Thus, the remand order requiring the USCIS to adjudicate Abdelgalel’s
application afforded Abdelgalel “some relief” on the merits.
Furthermore, the district court’s remand order changed the legal relationship
between the parties, as required by Buckhannon. At the time he filed his action,
Abedelgalel had waited for over two years for the USCIS to make a determination
on his application. The district court’s order required the USCIS to make that
determination within ninety days and reserved the right to reassert jurisdiction if
the USCIS failed to comply. The USCIS would have violated the remand order
had it failed to adjudicate Abdelgalel’s application within the court-ordered time
frame. By giving Abdelgalel a legally-enforceable right to adjudication within
ninety days, the remand order changed the legal relationship between the parties.
16
The government characterizes the USCIS’s adjudication of Abdelgalel’s
application as “voluntary.” However, the USCIS’s adjudication was not
voluntary in the Buckhannon sense. Rather, at the time the application was
approved, the USCIS was under a court order pursuant to § 1447(b) to do so by
September 17, 2009, and had no choice in the matter. This fact materially
distinguishes this case from Morillo-Cedron, in which the district court had issued
a show cause order, but had not yet acted on the merits of the request for
mandamus relief. In other words, unlike here, the government in Morillo-Cedron
acted on the plaintiffs’ applications before being ordered to do so.
The government defendants argue that Abdelgalel did not prevail because
he opposed their motion to remand. This is not a complete characterization of
Abdelgalel’s position in the district court. Given what Abdelgalel believed was
bad faith on the government’s part, Abdelgalel’s first preference was for the
district court itself to address his application. However, Abdelgalel’s response to
the motion to remand alternatively requested that, if the district court chose to
remand, it give the USCIS a finite period of time in which to act. This position
was consistent with Abdelgalel’s complaint, which prayed in the alternative for an
order requiring the USCIS to act on his application. And, the district court granted
17
Abdelgalel this requested relief. Thus, Abdelgalel satisfied the EAJA’s prevailing
party requirement.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Abdelgalel’s motion to
confirm his naturalization. However, we reverse the district court’s finding that
Abdelgalel had not satisfied the EAJA’s “prevailing party” requirement. On
remand, the district court must address whether Abdelgalel has satisfied the other
requirements of the EAJA, namely whether the government’s position in the
§ 1447(b) proceedings was substantially justified or if special circumstances make
an award of attorneys fees and costs unjust, issues upon which we express no
opinion.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSE AND REMANDED IN PART.
18