Avetisyan v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

 HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 ARMEN AVETISYAN, 8 Plaintiff, Case No. 2:22-cv-00407-RAJ 9 v. ORDER GRANTING 10 DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND 11 IMMIGRATION SERVICES, 12 Defendant. 13 14 I. INTRODUCTION 15 Before the Court is Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Dkt. # 4. For the 16 reasons below, the motion is GRANTED. 17 II. BACKGROUND 18 In March 2022, Plaintiff Armen Avetisyan filed a complaint seeking to challenge 19 USCIS’s alleged delay in adjudicating his citizenship case or application for 20 naturalization. Dkt. # 1. Avetisyan obtained conditional permanent resident status 21 through his spouse in 2007 and his conditions were removed in 2010. See Dkt. # 5, ¶ 1. 22 Avetisyan subsequently filed two separate applications for naturalization and USCIS 23 denied both applications. Id., ¶ 2. Avetisyan filed his first naturalization application on 24 September 30, 2011, and USCIS denied the application on October 29, 2012. Id., ¶ 5. 25 Avetisyan filed his second naturalization application on September 14, 2012, and USCIS 26 denied the application denied on April 25, 2013. Id., ¶ 6. In May 2022, the government 27 moved for summary judgment. Dkt. # 4. 1 III. LEGAL STANDARD 2 Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine dispute as to any material 3 fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). 4 The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue 5 of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Where the moving 6 party will have the burden of proof at trial, it must affirmatively demonstrate that no 7 reasonable trier of fact could find other than for the moving party. Soremekun v. Thrifty 8 Payless, Inc., 509 F.3d 978, 984 (9th Cir. 2007). On an issue where the nonmoving party 9 will bear the burden of proof at trial, the moving party can prevail merely by pointing out 10 to the district court that there is an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party’s 11 case. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 325. If the moving party meets the initial burden, the 12 opposing party must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue of fact for 13 trial in order to defeat the motion. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 14 (1986). The court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving 15 party and draw all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor. Reeves v. Sanderson 16 Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133, 150-51 (2000). 17 However, the court need not, and will not, “scour the record in search of a genuine 18 issue of triable fact.” Keenan v. Allan, 91 F.3d 1275, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996); see also, White 19 v. McDonnel-Douglas Corp., 904 F.2d 456, 458 (8th Cir. 1990) (the court need not 20 “speculate on which portion of the record the nonmoving party relies, nor is it obliged to 21 wade through and search the entire record for some specific facts that might support the 22 nonmoving party’s claim”). The opposing party must present significant and probative 23 evidence to support its claim or defense. Intel Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 24 952 F.2d 1551, 1558 (9th Cir. 1991). Uncorroborated allegations and “self-serving 25 testimony” will not create a genuine issue of material fact. Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, 26 Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1061 (9th Cir. 2002); T.W. Elec. Serv. V. Pac Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 27 809 F. 2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987). 1 IV. DISCUSSION 2 The government claims that Avetisyan’s claims under the APA are barred under 3 the general the six-year statute of limitations for claims against the United States. Title 28 4 U.S.C. § 2401(a) states that: “Every civil action commenced against the United States 5 shall be barred unless the complaint is filed within six years after the right of action first 6 accrues.” Section 2401(a) applies to actions for judicial review brought under the APA. 7 See Wind River Mining Corp. v. United States, 946 F.2d 10, 712-13 (9th Cir. 1991). The 8 six-year statute of limitations begins to run when the right of action first accrues, which, 9 under the APA, is generally the time of the final agency action. See 5 U.S.C. § 704. 10 Here, USCIS’s final agency action regarding Avetisyan’s naturalization 11 applications occurred on October 29, 2012 and April 25, 2013, when it denied the 12 applications. This makes the deadline to file an action for undue delay or an action under 13 the APA regarding USCIS’s actions approximately October 29, 2018 and April 25, 2019. 14 Avetisyan’s March 30, 2022 complaint is beyond the statute of limitations. To the extent 15 Avetisyan seeks relief for the denial of his applications, those claims are also barred by 16 2401(a)’s six-year statute of limitations. 17 V. CONCLUSION 18 For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion for 19 summary judgment. Dkt. # 4. Nothing is this order precludes Avetisyan from filing a new 20 naturalization application with USCIS. 21 DATED this 15th day of February 2023. 22 A 23 24 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 25 United States District Judge 26 27