7th Circuit holds immigrant failed to argue the merits of his claim

The 7^th Circuit Court of Appeals has denied an Eritrea immigrant’s attempt to become a naturalized citizen, holding he had waived his arguments at the appellate level because he focused on the procedure for processing his application rather than on the merits of his claim.

Fitsum Segid came to the United States from Eritera on an immigrant visa in 2006 and became a lawful permanent resident in February 2007. However, in April 2015 when he applied for naturalization, officials found he had three children in Eritera that he previously had not claimed on his application for immigration.

When he was confronted with this discrepancy, Segid said he did not believe he was named on his Eritrean children’s birth certification and he feared for their safety if he claimed them. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services denied his naturalization application, finding because he lied on his visa application, he was never lawfully admitted to America.

Likewise, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana reached the same conclusion.

The 7^th Circuit noted while Segid had argued the merits of his eligibility for naturalization before the district court, his primary argument on appeal related to the claim-processing rules. He asserted he stated a claim for relief under 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) because he met the administrative requirements of the statute: he filed a naturalization application, which was denied, and he had a hearing that also resulted in a denial.

However, the 7^th Circuit held Segid misconstrued the statutes. The appellate panel maintained his claim should have focused on whether he should have been granted naturalization.

In his reply brief, Segid argued he presented his merits arguments in his opening brief but the district court relied on information outside the pleadings when it determined that he had failed to state a claim.

The 7^th Circuit held Segid was still failing to address the merits of his claim for naturalization. Also, in a footnote, the appellate panel pointed out his procedural argument is meritless. Contrary to his contention, the district court relied solely on Segid’s complaint and nothing more.

As a result, the 7^th Circuit found Segid’s failure to properly present arguments constituted a waiver.

“Here, Segid presented his arguments on the merits of his naturalization claim before the district court, but he neglected to address this dispositive issue in his opening brief,” Judge Candace Jackson-Akiwumi wrote for the court in Fitsum g. Segid v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, et al., 21-3333.  “That is waiver.”