Al-Saadoon v. Barr, No. 19-1335 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
In Al-Saadoon I, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of petitioners' (husband and wife) petitions for naturalization because husband engaged in unlawful employment and thus the couple never lawfully adjusted to permanent resident status. Petitioners then filed a Supplement A to Form I-485 with USCIS to adjust their status to lawful permanent residents nunc pro tunc.
The court affirmed the district court's denial of petitioners' requests for nunc pro tunc adjustment to lawful permanent resident status, holding that the district court did not have jurisdiction to review a discretionary denial of an adjustment of status application. The court explained that, because petitioners failed to adjust their status to lawful permanent residents, they cannot meet the requirements for naturalization. To the extent that petitioners attempt to relitigate the determination that they were unlawfully admitted to permanent resident status in 2002, they are barred by res judicata. The court also held that the district court correctly dismissed petitioner's Controlled Application Review and Resolution Program claim. Finally, petitioners' Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) claim fails because they did not assert a claim for relief under RFRA in their petition.
Court Description: [Smith, Author, with Melloy and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Immigration. For the court's prior opinion in the matter see Al-Saadoon v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1012 (8th Cir. 2016). The district court properly held it did not have jurisdiction to review USCIS's discretionary denial of plaintiffs' request for their lawful permanent resident status to be reinstated nunc pro tunc; since adjustment to lawful permanent resident status is a prerequisite to naturalization, plaintiffs could not meet the legal requirements for naturalization; to the extent plaintiffs attempt to relitigate the determination that they were unlawfully admitted to permanent resident status in 2002, the argument was barred by res judicata; with respect to plaintiffs' claims they were impermissibly denied relief under a secret Controlled Application Review and Resolution Program, their claims were broad and speculative and were properly dismissed; plaintiffs could not amend their complaint to state a RFRA claim by including the claims for the first time in their response to the government's motion to dismiss.
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.