Maria Reimers v. Uscis ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 2 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA ELENA REIMERS, USCIS A# 097 No. 22-35248
107 629,
D.C. No. 2:20-cv-00459-RMP
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. MEMORANDUM*
UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION SERVICES; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Rosanna Malouf Peterson, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted April 12, 2023
Seattle, Washington
Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and DESAI, Circuit Judges.
Maria Reimers, a lawful permanent resident, appeals the district court’s grant
of summary judgment in favor of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
(“USCIS”), several of its employees, and the U.S. Attorney General (collectively,
“Defendants”) in Ms. Reimers’s action under 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) challenging
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
USCIS’s denial of her application for naturalization. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291 and review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment.
See Park v. Barr, 946 F.3d 1096, 1097 (9th Cir. 2020). We affirm.
1. Ms. Reimers first challenges the district court’s holding that she is
ineligible for naturalization. To qualify for naturalization, an applicant must
establish that “during the five years immediately preceding the date of filing [the]
application,” she “has been and still is a person of good moral character.” 8 U.S.C.
§ 1427(a). But an applicant is precluded from establishing good moral character if
she violated the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”). 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(f)(3),
1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II); 8 C.F.R. § 316.10(b)(2)(iv). A violation of the CSA is “a per
se bar to naturalization.” Hussein v. Barrett, 820 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2016).
Ms. Reimers admitted to operating a marijuana business. Even though Ms.
Reimers’s business is licensed under Washington law, it nevertheless constitutes a
violation of the CSA. See 21 U.S.C. § 812, Schedule I(c)(10) (designating marijuana
as a controlled substance). And, even though Ms. Reimers may otherwise be eligible
to naturalize, her operation of a licensed marijuana business categorically precludes
her from qualifying for naturalization.
We therefore affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment.1
1
Ms. Reimers also argues that the district court erred by granting summary
judgment because she was entitled to a full evidentiary hearing under 8 U.S.C. §
2 22-35248
2. Ms. Reimers also challenges the constitutionality of the “good moral
character” statutory bar. Her Commerce Clause, Supremacy Clause, and Tenth
Amendment arguments are foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent. In Gonzales v.
Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), the Supreme Court held that the CSA’s criminalization of
purely intrastate manufacture, distribution, or possession of marijuana was a proper
exercise of Congress’ Commerce Clause authority. Id. at 25–26. And Gonzales held
that the CSA preempts state marijuana laws. Id. at 29. The Court has also held that
when Congress acts under one of its enumerated powers, there is no Tenth
Amendment violation. New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 156–57 (1992);
United States v. Mikhel, 889 F.3d 1003, 1024 (9th Cir. 2018) (“‘[I]f Congress acts
under one of its enumerated powers’ . . . then ‘there can be no violation of the Tenth
Amendment.’”) (quoting United States v. Jones, 231 F.3d 508, 515 (9th Cir. 2000)).
Ms. Reimers’s equal protection claim also fails. She contends that she is
treated differently than citizen marijuana business owners, but Ms. Reimers is not a
citizen and, moreover, the naturalization statutes do not apply to citizens. Ms.
Reimers has not shown that Defendants treated similarly situated individuals—other
1421(c). Even if we assume—without deciding—that § 1421(c) entitled Ms.
Reimers to a full hearing, she cross-moved for summary judgment, and thus
relinquished any right to a full hearing. Cf. In re Oracle Corp. Sec. Litig., 627 F.3d
376, 386 (9th Cir. 2010); Johnson v. I.N.S., 971 F.2d 340, 343–44 (9th Cir. 1992)
(holding that the invited error doctrine precluded a litigant from challenging the
admissibility of a document on appeal when her own lawyer introduced the
document below).
3 22-35248
non-citizen marijuana business owners—differently under the naturalization
statutes. See United States v. Quintero, 995 F.3d 1044, 1057 (9th Cir. 2021)
(rejecting equal protection claim because two groups were “not comparable for equal
protection purposes” and the government had “different interests” related to each
group).
We thus affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in Defendants’
favor on Ms. Reimers’s constitutional challenges.
AFFIRMED.
4 22-35248