Gill v. Bardini

427 F. App'x 571
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided January 14, 2011·No. No. 10-15712·Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Piara Singh Gill (Gill) challenges the district court’s decision to grant the government’s motion to dismiss under Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The district court did not address Gill’s claim challenging the constitutionality of 8 C.F.R. § 208.24.1

1. The district court erred in granting the government’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c), the district court had jurisdiction to review the denial of Gill’s application for naturalization. See United [572] States v. Hovsepian, 359 F.3d 1144, 1162 (9th Cir.2004). Although the district court’s review is limited to review of the specific basis of the denial of naturalization, see De Lara Bellajaro v. Schiltgen, 378 F.3d 1042, 1043-44 (9th Cir.2004), as amended, it was error for the district court to conclude that it lacked jurisdiction entirely. See id.2

2. The district court dismissed the remainder of Gill’s claims pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), without specifically resolving Gill’s claim concerning the constitutionality of 8 C.F.R. § 208.24. In failing to address this argument, the district court erred. The district court had jurisdiction over this issue, because the BIA is without authority to determine the constitutionality of regulations. See Gete v. I.N.S., 121 F.3d 1285, 1291 (9th Cir.1997).

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this disposition.

Footnotes

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Gill v. Bardini, 427 F. App'x 571 (9th Cir. 2011).

427 F. App'x 571 (Gill v. Bardini) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related