United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued October 1, 2020 Decided July 13, 2021 No. 19-5357 GERALD LEE FARRELL, APPELLANT v. ANTONY BLINKEN, SECRETARY OF STATE, ET AL., APPELLEES Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:17-cv-00490) Bradley Banias argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellant. P. Angel Martinez, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief were Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, William C. Peachey, Director, and Yamileth Davila, Assistant Director. Before: KATSAS, RAO and WALKER, Circuit Judges. Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge RAO. Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge KATSAS. 2 RAO, Circuit Judge: While United States citizenship is one of the most sought after in the world, American citizens sometimes choose to relinquish this privilege and place their allegiance elsewhere. Congress has specified the actions that will result in expatriation and also vested authority in the Secretary of State to recognize the loss of nationality. Before recognizing a person’s expatriation, the Department of State (the “Department”) requires citizens to comply with various procedures. If it is satisfied that expatriation has occurred, the Department will issue a certificate of loss of nationality (“CLN”). This case involves a challenge to the procedures for obtaining a CLN. Gerald Farrell claims that he has performed an expatriating act by naturalizing as a Swiss citizen with the intent to relinquish his United States citizenship. The Department denied Farrell’s request for a CLN because he has not appeared at a consulate abroad to fill out forms that, according to the Department, must be completed in person to obtain a CLN. Farrell challenges this “in-person requirement,” arguing that it is contrary to law, ultra vires, and arbitrary and capricious. The district court upheld the in-person requirement. We first explain the basis of Farrell’s standing and our jurisdiction to decide this case. On the merits, we agree with the district court that the Department has statutory authority to impose an in-person requirement; however, we hold the Department acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying Farrell a CLN. In a series of letter responses to Farrell’s request for a CLN, the Department offered conflicting and ever- evolving reasons for denying the CLN and failed to explain what tasks Farrell was required to complete in person. We thus reverse and remand to the district court with instructions to remand to the Department to reconsider Farrell’s request for a CLN. 3 I. Farrell enjoyed U.S. citizenship by virtue of his birth in Santa Clara, California. In 1994 he moved to Switzerland, where he married a Swiss citizen and had a child. In 2004, he naturalized as a Swiss citizen, allegedly with the intent of relinquishing his United States nationality pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a)(1). Section 1481(a) lists various acts by which a United States national can expatriate. One such expatriating act is “voluntarily … with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality … obtaining …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals