United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-3133 ___________________________ Emad Haroun lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; Kevin McAleenan; Kenneth T. Cuccinelli; Ann Marie Jordan-Starks1 lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - Eastern Division ____________ Submitted: December 13, 2018 Filed: July 15, 2019 ____________ Before SMITH, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ GRASZ, Circuit Judge. 1 Kevin McAleenan, Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, and Ann Marie Jordan-Starks have been appointed to serve as the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, Acting Director of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), and Acting Director of the St. Louis USCIS Field Office, respectively, and are automatically substituted as appellees pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2). Those seeking to become United States citizens must submit an application and complete an examination with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). If the USCIS fails to reach a decision on the application within 120 days after the applicant completes this process, 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) allows the applicant to seek a decision from the district court in the district in which the applicant resides. Once the applicant does so, the statute provides that the district court “has jurisdiction over the matter and may either determine the matter or remand the matter, with appropriate instructions, to the [USCIS] to determine the matter.” Id. The question we face is whether a proceeding in the district court under § 1447(b) becomes moot when the USCIS purports to deny a naturalization application after the applicant has already initiated the court proceeding. We conclude it does not. I. Background Emad Haroun is a citizen of Jordan and a lawful United States permanent resident who lives in St. Louis, Missouri. In September 2014, he filed the application for naturalization at issue in this case. Haroun completed all of the required examinations by early 2015. In September 2016, when the USCIS had still not made a decision on his application, he sued the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the USCIS, and numerous government officials (“the Government”).2 He asked the district court to grant his naturalization application or order the USCIS to timely make a decision on it. The Government moved to dismiss. The USCIS had issued a decision denying Haroun’s application for lack of good moral character five days after he filed in the district court, which the Government argued made the case moot. The district court granted the motion. It concluded that § 1447(b) creates “concurrent jurisdiction” 2 Haroun also challenged the legality of a USCIS program that he alleged was responsible for the delay of his application. That issue is not before us in this appeal. -2- between district courts and the USCIS over naturalization applications and that the denial mooted the district court proceeding. Haroun timely appealed. II. Analysis Reviewing the district court’s order de novo, Davis v. Morris-Walker, LTD, 922 F.3d 868, 870 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals