Appeal
from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas
Before
HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PATRICK E. HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judge:
The
United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS)
denied Dolores Margarita Gonzalez a certificate of
citizenship, first in 2008, then again in 2016. Gonzalez
challenged only the agency's 2016 denial. The Government
argues Gonzalez's challenge is untimely, that the
relevant five-year limitations period runs from the first of
her denials. Finding Gonzalez's action untimely, we
affirm the district court's dismissal of her claim.
I.
Gonzalez
was born in 1962 in Tamaulipas, Mexico to an American father
and a Mexican mother. Her parents were not married at the
time, but entered a putative marriage in 1972. In 1983,
Gonzalez filed an application for a certificate of
citizenship with the Immigration and Naturalization Service
(INS). In 1984, INS determined that Gonzalez was legitimated
when her parents were married, and that she thereby acquired
United States citizenship through her father. The agency
issued Gonzalez a certificate of citizenship.
In
1991, however, INS notified Gonzalez it intended to cancel
the certificate of citizenship issued seven years earlier. In
the intervening years, INS had discovered that Gonzalez's
father "had an unterminated marriage when he married
[her] mother . . . rendering the [latter] marriage . . .
invalid," such that Gonzalez was not legitimated. The
agency provided an opportunity for Gonzalez to rebut the
finding, but she did not respond. Gonzalez claims she never
received the 1991 letter.
No
action was taken for fifteen years. Then, in 2006, INS's
successor agency, USCIS, issued an order for the surrender
and cancellation of Gonzalez's certificate of
citizenship. Gonzalez surrendered her certificate and
immediately filed a motion for reconsideration with the
agency. In this motion, Gonzalez argued the cancellation was
procedurally defective: she had not received INS's 1991
letter and therefore was denied an opportunity to contest its
findings. She also argued she had been properly legitimated
under the applicable Mexican law as the child of parents who
entered a putative marriage in good faith. On September 2,
2008, USCIS determined that its cancellation decision was
proper, and dismissed Gonzalez's motion (the "2008
Denial"). Gonzalez did not pursue an administrative
appeal.
On May
28, 2014, Gonzalez filed a new motion with USCIS, advancing a
new basis for the reconsideration of USCIS's decision,
namely that she had been legitimated by her father's
sworn acknowledgement of paternity. Gonzalez attached
evidence in support of this argument: Social Security records
indicating the receipt of benefits as her father's
recognized daughter and a copy of a certificate of United
States citizenship issued to her sister in 2013. On November
14, 2014, USCIS determined that Gonzalez's evidence
failed to establish that she had been legitimated, and
dismissed the motion. Gonzalez pursued an administrative
appeal, and on January 29, 2016, the Administrative Appeals
Office affirmed the agency's refusal to reopen her case
("the 2016 Denial").
On
April 5, 2017, Gonzalez filed the instant action against the
USCIS Harlingen Field Office Director as well as the United
States (collectively "the Government") in the
Southern District of Texas. Gonzalez alleged that, by
cancelling her certificate of citizenship and refusing to
reconsider that decision, USCIS unlawfully denied her a right
or privilege claimed as a national of the United States. She
sought a declaration of her citizenship under 8 U.S.C. §
1503(a), as well as an injunction "enjoining [USCIS]
from not re-issuing" her certificate of citizenship.
The
Government moved to dismiss the action for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing the suit was barred by
Section 1503(a)'s limitations provision because Gonzalez
failed to bring her claim within five years of the 2008
Denial-the 2016 Denial did not restart the limitations clock.
In addition, Gonzalez failed to exhaust administrative
remedies with respect to the 2008 Denial.
The
district court granted the Government's motion and
dismissed Gonzalez's action for lack of jurisdiction.
Finding the text of the statute "silent on whether the
statute of limitation commences after the first or the most
recent final administrative denial," the district court
held that Section 1503(a) includes an implicit limitation to
the initial administrative denial. In the absence of such a
limitation, Gonzalez could restart the limitations period by
prompting duplicative denials-the "five-year requirement
[would be] meaningless." The initial denial was the 2008
Denial, "[t]hus the five-year statute of limitations
period commenced in 2008, and expired in 2013." The 2016
Denial did "not modify the expiration of the five-year
statute of limitations." Additionally, the district
court held that Gonzalez failed to exhaust administrative
remedies with respect to the 2008 Denial. This appeal
followed.[1]
II.
"Federal
courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only
that power authorized by Constitution and statute, which is
not to be expanded by judicial decree."[2] We review
jurisdictional issues de novo.[3] The court
"must presume that a suit lies outside [its] limited
jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing federal
jurisdiction rests on the party seeking the federal
forum."[4]The court asks whether the plaintiff ...