Moya v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec.

975 F.3d 120

Daysi MOYA, Obdulia Ruiz, Youth Ministries for Peace and Justice, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants,

Soya Frances De Dandrade, Maria Vasquez, Marisol Ojeda De Nunez, Juana Jimenez, Eduvigis A. Del Rosario, Chou Hang, Miguelina De La Cruz, Project Citizenship, Inc., Plaintiffs,

v.UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Chad Wolf, as Acting Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security, Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, as Acting Director of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Defendants-Appellees.

Docket No. 19-1002-cv

August Term, 2019

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued: December 6, 2019

Decided: September 15, 2020

Christopher Lamb, Bronx Legal Services, Bronx, NY for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Anthony J. Sun (Christopher Connolly, on the brief), for Geoffrey S. Berman, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY.

Before: Jacobs, Carney, and Park, Circuit Judges.

Judge Jacobs concurs in part and concurs in the judgment in a separate opinion.

Judge Carney concurs in part and dissents in part in a separate opinion.

Park, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiffs Daysi Moya and Obdulia Ruiz applied to become naturalized citizens of the United States. The government denied their requests for disability exemptions from the civics and English testing requirements, and Moya and Ruiz sued in federal court claiming that the naturalization process is unlawful. The Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"), however, does not allow Moya and Ruiz to seek judicial review of the denial of their applications until "after completion of the available administrative review procedures." Escaler v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs. , 582 F.3d 288, 291 (2d Cir. 2009) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) ). Because Moya and Ruiz did not exhaust their administrative remedies, the district court properly dismissed their claims. The other plaintiff in this appeal is Youth Ministries for Peace and Justice, Inc. ("YMPJ"), a non-profit organization that assists applicants for naturalization. The district court correctly found that although YMPJ had Article III standing to sue, it did not fall within the zone of interests of the INA, the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), or the Due Process Clause and thus could not bring a cause of action on its own behalf. For these reasons, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Naturalization Process

Under the INA, a lawful permanent resident ("LPR") who wishes to become a naturalized citizen must pass English and civics tests. 8 U.S.C. § 1423(a). The INA grants an exemption to "any person who is unable because of physical or developmental disability or mental impairment" to comply with these testing requirements. Id . § 1423(b)(1). An applicant seeking this exemption "must submit Form N-648, Medical Certification for Disability Exceptions" (the "N-648 waiver"), to be completed by a licensed doctor or psychologist. 8 C.F.R. § 312.2(b)(2). If the applicant's N-648 waiver request is denied, she has two chances to pass the English and civics tests, and if she cannot do so, her naturalization application is denied. Id . §§ 312.2(c), 312.5(a), 336.1.

When "an application for naturalization is denied, the applicant may request a hearing before [a different] immigration officer." 8 U.S.C. § 1447(a). If that immigration officer affirms the denial, the applicant "may seek review of such denial before the United States district court for the district in which such person resides." Id . § 1421(c). The district court "shall make its own findings of fact and conclusions of law and shall, at the request of the petitioner, conduct a hearing de novo on the application." Id . Section 1421(c) provides the "[s]ole procedure" for applicants to challenge the denial of a naturalization application, and applicants must raise any such challenges "in the manner and under the conditions prescribed [by the INA] and not otherwise." Id . § 1421(d).

B. The Parties

Plaintiffs Daysi Moya and Obdulia Ruiz (the "Individual Plaintiffs") are LPRs who applied to become naturalized citizens. They suffer from "major depressive disorder" and submitted N-648 waiver forms, but were denied exemptions from the testing requirements. Their naturalization applications were denied or withdrawn after they failed to satisfy the English and civics requirements twice.

Moya alleges that the immigration officer who considered her waiver request "did not review [her] N-648 disability waiver forms" prior to meeting with her, failed to "provide [her] with a detailed explanation or meaningful guidance," and otherwise failed to consider her application properly. Ruiz similarly claims that her N-648 waiver and naturalization application were rejected for arbitrary and improper reasons. Moya and Ruiz do not dispute that they failed to satisfy the INA's exhaustion requirement by seeking a hearing before a new immigration officer after their naturalization applications were denied. See 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c).

YMPJ is a non-profit organization that provides assistance to communities in the South Bronx, including "immigration services, specifically helping their eligible constituents become United States Citizens." YMPJ employs a United States Department of Justice ("DOJ") "accredited representative" to help immigrants apply for citizenship. Between 2015 and 2017, when this lawsuit was filed, YMPJ's representative assisted with 118 naturalization applications. Eleven of these applications requested N-648 waivers, ten of which were denied after the first interview with an immigration officer.

Plaintiffs allege that "YMPJ's DOJ accredited representative expends additional resources in serving clients who require N-648 waivers ... and, at minimum, spends twice as much time servicing naturalization clients who require N-648 waiver requests [as] those who do not." They further allege that rejection of an N-648 waiver imposes burdens on the DOJ-accredited representative, who must "work with physicians to supplement and revise N-648 disability waiver forms." Because Defendants’ allegedly "unlawful policies and practices" lead to the rejection of more N-648 waivers, Plaintiffs claim that these policies force the representative to spend more time with disabled clients and less time with everyone else. As a result, YMPJ had to "divert substantial resources away from [its] primary mission in order to address, respond to, and alleviate the unlawful disability discrimination their clients face at the hands of the Defendants." This prevented YMPJ "from conducting [its] primary mission of assisting eligible individuals to naturalize, requiring [YMPJ] to spend substantial time and resources overcoming unlawful discriminatory barriers to the naturalization of their clients."

Defendants-Appellees are the United States Department of Homeland Security, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the directors of those agencies (collectively, "Defendants" or the "government"). Plaintiffs allege that Defendants "routinely violate their own policies with regard to" N-648 waivers. They claim that Defendants subject disabled naturalization applicants seeking N-648 waivers "to arbitrary decision-making, discriminate against them on the basis of their disabilities," and otherwise "fail to provide them with reasonable accommodations" as required by law.

C. Procedural History

In 2017 a group of LPRs and immigration-related non-profit organizations (including Moya, Ruiz, and YMPJ) sued Defendants for failing "to implement a fair and effective system for approving [N-648] waivers in violation of [their] obligations under the" INA, the APA, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.¹ Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief to change the N-648 waiver process in various ways.

Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The district court granted the motion in full and dismissed all of Moya's, Ruiz's, and YMPJ's claims.

First, the court held that the Individual Plaintiffs could not bring their INA, APA, or Due Process Clause claims in federal court because they had not exhausted their administrative remedies as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c). Second, the court held that Plaintiffs could not sue under the Rehabilitation Act because the statute does not imply a private right of action against executive agencies in their regulatory capacity. Third, the court held that YMPJ had Article III standing to sue Defendants for their N-648 waiver practices because YMPJ alleged that Defendants’ conduct impaired its mission of assisting immigrants. Fourth, the district court held that YMPJ could not bring suit under the INA, the APA, or the Due Process Clause because, unlike individual applicants for naturalization, the organization was not within the zone of interests of these laws.

Plaintiffs now appeal the district court's dismissal of their claims.

II. DISCUSSION

When reviewing the dismissal of a complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or failure to state a claim, "we review factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo , accepting all material facts alleged in the complaint as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor." Liranzo v. United States , 690 F.3d 78, 84 (2d Cir. 2012) ; Faulkner v. Beer , 463 F.3d 130, 133 (2d Cir. 2006).

A. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

The district court properly dismissed the Individual Plaintiffs’ claims under the INA, the APA, and the Due Process Clause because they failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. The INA provides that "[a] person whose application for naturalization under this subchapter is denied, after a hearing before [a second] immigration officer under section 1447(a) of this title , may seek review of such denial before the United...