Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Valentina S. MAXWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
MEMORANDUM **
Valentina S. Maxwell, a native and citizen of Russia, appeals pro se from the district court’s dismissal of her complaint under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) requesting a hearing on her naturalization application, for failure to state a claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim. Yith v. Nielsen, 881 F.3d 1155, 1161 (9th Cir. 2018). We reverse.
The district court erred in dismissing Maxwell’s complaint for failure to state a claim, where the language of 8 U.S.C. § 1429 only bars the Attorney General, and not the district court, from considering a naturalization application when there is a removal proceeding pending against the applicant, and where Maxwell was not in removal proceedings pursuant to a “warrant of arrest,” but pursuant to a notice to appear. See 8 U.S.C. § 1429 (“[N]o application for naturalization shall be considered by the Attorney General if there is pending against the applicant a removal proceeding pursuant to a warrant of arrest issued under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act.”); Yith, 881 F.3d at 1165, 1168 (the statutory language of 8 U.S.C. § 1429 applies only to the Attorney General, not the district court, and thus the district court is not prevented from granting relief under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b); § 1429 is inapplicable to applicants in proceedings pursuant to a notice to appear, which is different from a “warrant of arrest”). Accordingly, we reverse the district court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 15-16520
Decided: June 15, 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)