Third Circuit Finds that Equitable Estoppel Cannot Confer Citizenship

The Third Circuit has determined that a non-citizen who was erroneously granted a certificate of citizenship, which was not revoked for 21 years, cannot use the doctrine of equitable estoppel to obtain a declaration of citizenship from a federal court. “It is unfortunate that the government erroneously issued Lall a Certificate of Citizenship in the first place. And it is inexcusable that it quickly discovered its error but failed to correct it for over twenty-one years. Of course, it is Lall’s own subsequent criminal conduct that has brought the consequences of the government’s dereliction down on his head. Still, that dereliction has fundamentally changed Lall’s identity and place in the world. He turns to us for assistance, but we cannot provide the relief he seeks. Not every wrong is ours to right. “

The full text of Lall v. Department of Homeland Security can be found here:

https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/202051p.pdf

Second Circuit Applies Equitable Estoppel Doctrine in CSPA Case

The Second Circuit has applied the equitable estoppel doctrine to a case involving the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA). The petitioner had filed and adjustment of status application when she was 17 years old, as a derivative of her mother’s adjustment. The application arrived at USCIS a few days before the new visa bulletin went into effect, and thus, was premature. Instead of following agency policy, which was to reject such a filing, USCIS did not issue a rejection or a receipt notice, and failed to respond to service requests for three years. By the time the petitioner became aware that USCIS had no record of her adjustment application, she had aged out of her derivative status.

“USCIS's silence and inaction for the three years following the submission of Schwebel's 2007 application would reasonably suggest that the application was indeed being processed. For these reasons, we conclude that Schwebel reasonably relied on USCIS's inaction in believing that her 2007 application was being processed. In light of the ‘extraordinary circumstances’ here, where Schwebel's application was received by the agency just four days too early, and a visa remained available for another month and a half, the agency should have provided -- and indeed was required by its own procedures to provide -- reasonably prompt notice of the purported defect. If it had done so, Schwebel would likely have been able to resubmit her application within the application period. Because of USCIS's failure to provide reasonably prompt notice, Schwebel suffered great prejudice as she ‘aged out’ of the CSPA by the time another visa period opened. Her parents are now lawful permanent residents, and if the government's failures here are not rectified, there is a possibility that Schwebel will be separated from her family and removed from the country in which she has lived since she was eight years old.”

The full text of Schwebel v. Crandall can be found here:

https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/5255578c-4d1d-4db5-ac16-bbbd78d43c08/6/doc/18-3391_opn.pdf#xml=https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/5255578c-4d1d-4db5-ac16-bbbd78d43c08/6/hilite/