No Remand Appeals in Naturalization Proceedings

In Dubon v. Jaddou, the Fourth Circuit dismissed an appeal from an order remanding a naturalization action to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. The court acknowledged that this remand order would be unreviewable in any future proceedings. But it thought that this lack of review was harmless, as the applicant could eventually obtain judicial review of the underlying naturalization decision.

The Naturalization Proceedings in Dubon

Simplifying a bit, the plaintiff in Dubon had applied for naturalization. After some initial proceedings and an interview, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service did nothing for over a year. The applicant then turned to the district court, filing an action under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). Section 1447(b) authorizes naturalization applicants to bring an action against the Service when the Service has delayed processing an application:

If there is a failure to make a determination under section 1446 of this title before the end of the 120-day period after the date on which the examination is conducted under such section, the applicant may apply to the United States district court for the district in which the applicant resides for a hearing on the matter. Such court has jurisdiction over the matter and may either determine the matter or remand the matter, with appropriate instructions, to the Service to determine the matter.

The applicant in Dubon asked the district court to decide his application. But the district court declined and instead remanded the action to the Service with instructions to decide the application within 15 days. The Service complied with that order and denied the application.

The applicant then appealed the district court’s decision to the FOurth Circuit, seeking review of the remand order. He argued that the agency had no good reason for the delay, such that the district court should have decided the application instead of remanding.

The Administrative-Remand Rule

As a general rule, district court decisions remanding disputes to an agency are not final or appealable. The main reason is that remands normally mean that more remains to be done in the agency. So the remand does not decide the action’s merits.

Courts have offered a few other reasons supporting the administrative-remand rule. An immediate appeal from a remand would likely require staying these administrative proceedings. An immediate appeal could also lead to piecemeal review. The court of appeals might hear a case twice—once after the administrative remand and again after any further administrative proceedings. And delaying review would consolidate all issues (from both the earlier agency action and the later agency action) into one appeal.

So parties generally have to wait until after the proceedings on remand before taking an appeal. But that’s not always the case, and exceptions to the general rule exist. For example, a remand is appealable when delaying any review might prevent a party—often the government—from obtaining any appellate review.

The Administrative-Remand in Dubon

The Fourth Circuit applied the administrative-remand rule to hold that the remand in Dubon was not a final decision. The remand did not end the litigation on the merits, as more—deciding the application—remained to be done.

The Fourth Circuit also held that the remand order was not appealable via the collateral-order doctrine. One of that doctrine’s requirements is that the appealed order be effectively unreviewable after a final judgment. And, to be sure, the remand order would not be reviewed. But were that enough to satisfy the collateral-order doctrine, “little would remain” of the general bar on appealing administrative remands.

The Fourth Circuit added that the interest at stake—avoiding agency adjudication and instead having an application decided by the district court—was insufficiently important to warrant an appeal. That’s because the Service’s denial of an application can be reviewed by a district court de novo, without any deference to the agency. “So whether the district court goes first (as Dubon would like) or second (after an agency remand), the end result is the same: Dubon gets a de novo district court decision on his eligibility for naturalization.”

Dubon v. Jaddou, 2024 WL 3558867 (4th Cir. July 29, 2024), available at the Fourth Circuit and Westlaw