MacHie v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: April 25, 2025
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2025-0835
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EDMOND MACHIE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-00835 (UNA) ) ) UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP ) AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, ) ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is now before the court on plaintiff’s pro se amended complaint (“Am.

Compl.”), ECF No. 4, filed in response to the court’s order, ECF No. 3 (entered Mar. 26, 2025),

and his application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Upon review, the court grants

plaintiff’s IFP application and, for the reasons explained below, it dismisses this matter for failure

to state a claim, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and for want of subject matter jurisdiction, see

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

Plaintiff sues the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). Am. Compl. at

1. In his amended complaint, plaintiff details the circumstances of his immigration to the United

States from Cameroon in October 2001, by invitation from two government contractors and the

United States Ambassador to Cameroon, see id. at 2, as well as his subsequent education and

employment history, see id. at 1–3. He contends that, since October 31, 2001, he and his company,

E-Mac, Inc., have submitted multiple applications pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)(B)(i), see

Am. Compl. at 2–3, a subsection of the “preference quota system,” by which an alien with, inter

alia, a widely recognized and documented “extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics,” who plans to continue gainfully working in their given field in the United

States, can obtain a visa, see id. § 1153(b)(1)(A), without proof of a job offer, see id. §

1153(b)(2)(B)(i), also referred to as a “national interest waiver,” see Bestman v. Dep’t of Homeland

Security, No. 20-564, 2025 WL 358764, at *4 (D.D.C. Jan. 31, 2025). He alleges that USCIS

denied his petition for a preference quota visa and thus “failed to grant [him] his Notarization as a

United States Citizen.” See Am. Compl. at 3. He demands that this court “grant [him] United

States Citizenship.” Id.

Although plaintiff does not cite to any legal authority, the court notes that the

Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq, provides two methods by which

a plaintiff may seek equitable relief arising from a federal agency’s decision. A court may (1)

“compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed,” 5 U.S.C. § 706(1), or (2)

“hold unlawful and set aside agency action” that is, among other things, “arbitrary, capricious, an

abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law,” id. § 706(2).

Because plaintiff challenges a USCIS determination, and does not allege that any decision

has been withheld or delayed, § 706(2) appears to be most applicable here. But, per plaintiff’s own

allegations, he applied for a visa––not for citizenship; therefore, there is no agency action, final or

otherwise, before this court, regarding plaintiff’s application for citizenship, if any, as required by

statute, see 5 U.S.C. § 704. Without a final agency decision, plaintiff may not seek relief pursuant

to § 706(2). See FTC v. Standard Oil Co., 449 U.S. 232, 241 (1980); Sw. Airlines Co. v. DOT,

832 F.3d 270, 275 (D.C. Cir. 2016).

Nor is § 706(1) applicable to plaintiff’s claims. This court is without jurisdiction to

unliterally grant plaintiff citizenship or to direct USCIS to do so. “It is one thing to seek to compel

an agency to respond to an administrative complaint within a reasonable time. It is entirely another to seek to control what that response says.” SAI v. Homeland Security, 149 F. Supp. 3d 99, 109

(D.D.C. 2015). Put differently, “[u]nder Section 706(1) of the APA [Administrative Procedure

Act], a court may at times compel an agency ‘to take a discrete agency action that is it is required

to take,’ but may not direct ‘how it shall act.’ ” Id. (quoting Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness Alliance,

542 U.S. 55, 64 (2004) (emphases in original) (internal quotation marks omitted)), which is

particularly applicable here, because “the sole authority to naturalize persons as citizens of the

United States is conferred upon the Attorney General,” Onyekwuluje v. Jaddou, No. 23-1915, 2024

WL 701784, at *1 (3rd Cir. Feb. 21, 2024) (per curiam) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1421) (other citation

omitted); see also Angui v. U.S.A. District Court for Citizenship/Immigration, No. 17-04060, 2017

WL 5956879 (D.S.D. Apr, 27, 2017) (dismissing for failure to state a claim because a court “cannot

unilaterally grant [the plaintiff] the relief he seeks: immediate grant of citizenship as a way of

bypassing procedures in place to determine citizenship.”).

For all of these reasons, this case is dismissed without prejudice. A separate order

accompanies this memorandum opinion.

Date: April 25, 2025 Tanya S. Chutkan TANYA S. CHUTKAN United States District Judge