Hafils Akpovi v. David Douglas, No. 21-2852 (8th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) denied Petitioner’s Form N-400, Application for Naturalization because it determined that Petitioner was no longer a lawful permanent resident following the denial of his Form I-751, Petition to Remove Conditions on Residence. Petitioner sought de novo review of the denial of his N-400 pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section 1421(c), requesting that the district court direct USCIS to grant his N-400. The district court dismissed Petitioner’s petition without prejudice, finding that it lacked authority to direct USCIS to grant his N-400 and, alternatively, that his petition failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed, concluding that the district court did not err in finding that Section 1429 does not limit its jurisdiction to review Petitioner’s Section 1421(c) claim, nor does it limit the court’s jurisdiction over this appeal. The court further wrote that it joins its sister circuits in holding that the pendency of removal proceedings prevents a district court from directing the Attorney General to naturalize an alien due to the limits imposed on the Attorney General’s authority to consider applications for naturalization by Section 1429. Thus because Section 1429 precludes the district court from granting effective relief in this case, the court found that Petitioner’s Section 1421(c) petition is moot.
Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not commit a manifest error in stating that Petitioner could reassert a petition for review should removal proceedings be terminated in his favor and did not abuse its discretion in denying his Rule 59(e) motion.
Court Description: [Shepherd, Author, with Colloton and Wollman, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Immigration. Plaintiff appeals the denial of his Application for Naturalization. The district court did not err in concluding 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1429 does not limit its jurisdiction to review plaintiff's claim under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1421(c); this court joins its sister circuits in holding that the pendency of removal proceedings, whether initiated before or after the filing of a Sec. 1421(c) petition, prevents a district court from directing the Attorney General to naturalize an alien due to the limits imposed on the Attorney General's authority to consider applications for naturalization under Sec. 1429; because Sec. 1429 precludes a district court from granting effective relief in this case, plaintiff's Sec. 1421(c) petition is moot, and the district court did not err in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.