Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
OLEG CHURYUMOV, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 25-2408-KHV-GEB
)
UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP )
AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, )
)
Defendant. )
______________________________________ )
ORDER AND NOTICE AND REPORT OF RECOMMENDATION
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend the
Complaint (“First Motion”) (ECF No. 17) and Motion for Leave to File Amended
Complaint (“Second Motion”) (ECF No. 28). For the reasons outlined below, the
undersigned Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS Plaintiffs’ Second Motion (ECF No. 28)
BE DENIED. Plaintiff having filed his Second Motion, the Court FINDS AS MOOT
Plaintiff’s First Motion (ECF No. 17).
I. Background1
Plaintiff, a non-citizen active duty service member who filed a N-400 application
for naturalization, filed his Complaint on July 25, 2025 pursuant to the Administrative
Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. and the Mandamus Act 28 U.S.C. § 1361. He alleges
1 The facts are taken from Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) unless otherwise indicated. This
background information should not be construed as judicial findings or factual determinations.
Case 2:25-cv-02408-KHV-GEB Document 32 Filed 04/27/26 Page 1 of 10

2
Defendant’s refusal to process his application without Department of Defense background
checks violates the Administrative Procedure Act. For relief, he asked Defendant to
expedite his naturalization process, including his interview, due to an upcoming
deployment. Defendant filed a Motion to Continue2 its answer deadline on the basis it had
scheduled an interview with Plaintiff regarding his application for naturalization and if the
application was granted Plaintiff’s claim would become moot. The Court granted
Defendant’s Motion to Continue extending their deadline to answer or otherwise respond
up to and including January 15, 2026.3 Defendant timely filed a Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff’s original Complaint which remains pending.4
As Plaintiff’s N-400 application with Defendant has progressed, Plaintiff has
endeavored to amend his Complaint to add additional factual information regarding the
status of his case and amend his claims, as he believed necessary. Plaintiff has now had an
interview, and his application has been denied. In the Amended Complaint attached to
Plaintiff’s Second Motion, he alleges he timely sought administrative review of the denial
of his application by filing a Form N-336, Defendant rejected the filing based on an asserted
required filing fee, and the rejection of the Form N-336 deprived him of administrative
review and constitutes an agency action which is not in accordance with the law. Plaintiff’s
proposed Amended Complaint brings three claims under the Administrative Procedures
Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. and the Mandamus Act 28 U.S.C. § 1361; all three are related
2 ECF No. 15.
3 ECF No. 16.
4 ECF No. 18.
Case 2:25-cv-02408-KHV-GEB Document 32 Filed 04/27/26 Page 2 of 10

3
to Defendant’s rejection of his Form N-336. In Plaintiff’s prayer for relief, he not only asks
the Court to declare Defendant’s rejection of the Form N-336 unlawful but to: 1) vacate
Defendant’s denial of Plaintiff’s Form N-400 application for naturalization; 2) remand the
matter to USCIS for lawful adjudication; 3) excuse further administrative exhaustion as
satisfied; and 4) grant any further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Plaintiff
attached to his proposed Amended Complaint a copy of a Form I-797C, Notice of Action
rejecting a N-336, Request for a Hearing on a Decision in Naturalization which was
received on February 24, 2026 – Receipt Number IOE935918803.5 The rejection notice
provides the following reason for return of the Form N-336:
The payment amount provided does not match the required
amount according to what you have selected on the form, or no
payment amount has been provided. Please review the Fee
Schedule, Form G-1055 at uscis.gov/G-1055 for the latest fee
information. Please resubmit the application/petition package
with the appropriate fees to the address listed on the bottom of
this page.6
The day before Plaintiff filed his Second Motion, he filed a Motion to Set Aside
Agency Action, Compel Agency Action, and for Expedited Relief (“Motion to Set Aside
Agency Action”).7 The District Judge will decide Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside Agency
Action, however, the undersigned Magistrate Judge will decide Plaintiff’s Second Motion.
Despite the fact the two motions will be decided by different judges, Defendant filed a joint
response to them. The Court understands that paragraph IV(a) – Court should deny leave
5 ECF 28-2, p. 3.
6 Id.
7 ECF. No. 27.
Case 2:25-cv-02408-KHV-GEB Document 32 Filed 04/27/26 Page 3 of 10

4
to amend the complaint – is the sole section of Defendant’s argument in response to the
Second Motion, with paragraphs IV(b)-(d) being in response to the Motion to Set Aside
Agency Action.
II. Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Amend
Defendant alleges Plaintiff’s proposed Amended Complaint is false because it in
fact accepted his Form N-336 without requiring him to pay a fee. Defendant attaches to its
response, a Receipt Notice which indicates a Form N-336 was received from Plaintiff on
February 9, 2026 – Receipt Number IOE9268148425.8 The Receipt Notice indicates no fee
was paid with the form.9 Defendant argues Plaintiff’s claims are futile.
Plaintiff, in his reply, acknowledges the Form N-336 received on February 9, 2026
and attaches an April 10, 2026 notice of hearing set for June 1, 2026. However, he argues
the scheduled administrative hearing does not moot his case as there is no final favorable
agency action yet taken. Additionally, he argues his claim is plausible, not subject to
dismissal as a matter of law.
a. Legal Standard
The standard for permitting a party to amend his pleadings is well established. A
party may amend a pleading as a matter of course under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1), either
before the responding party answers or within 21 days after service of a responsive
8 ECF No. 29-1.
9 Id.
Case 2:25-cv-02408-KHV-GEB Document 32 Filed 04/27/26 Page 4 of 10

5
pleading. However, in cases such as this where the time for amendment as a matter of right
has passed, without the opposing party’s consent, a party may amend its pleading only by
leave of the court under Rule 15(a)(2), where leave “shall be freely given when justice so
requires.”
A decision to grant or deny leave to amend is within the sound discretion of the
Court.10 “If the underlying facts or circumstances relied upon by a plaintiff may be a proper
subject of relief, he ought to be afforded an opportunity to test his claim on the merits.”11
“In the absence of any apparent or declared reason—such as undue delay, bad faith or
dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by
amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of
allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.—the leave sought should, as the
rules require, be ‘freely given.’”12 Futility of amendment is adequate justification to deny
leave to amend.13 A court is “justified in denying the motion to amend if the proposed
amendment could not have withstood a motion to dismiss or otherwise failed to state a
claim.”14
A complaint must plead sufficient facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on
its face in order to withstand a motion to dismiss.15 Well-pleaded facts are accepted as
10 Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
11 Id.
12 Id.
13 Schepp v. Fremont Cnty., 900 F.2d 1448, 1451 (10th Cir. 1990) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S.
178, 182 (1962)).
14 Id.
15 Archuleta v. Wagner, 523 F.3d 1278, 1283 (10th Cir. 2008).
Case 2:25-cv-02408-KHV-GEB Document 32 Filed 04/27/26 Page 5 of 10

6
true.16 Additionally, all reasonable inferences derived from such facts are viewed in the
light most favorable to Plaintiff.17 Plaintiff proceeds pro se, thus his pleadings must be
construed liberally.18 However, he still bears the burden to allege “sufficient facts on which
a recognized legal claim could be based.”19 The Court cannot “take on the responsibility
of serving as his attorney in constructing arguments and searching the record.”20
b. Discussion
Defendant argues Plaintiff’s claims in the proposed Amended Complaint, all related
to Defendant’s alleged rejection of his Form N-336, are futile because there is no longer a
live case or controversy. As discussed below, the Court is inclined to agree that certain of
Plaintiff’s claims are moot, but it does not find all claims are moot.
“Article III of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to actual
‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies.’” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2.”21 “The case-or-controversy
requirement ‘ensures that the Federal Judiciary confines itself to its constitutionally limited
role of adjudicating actual and concrete disputes, the resolutions of which have direct
consequences on the parties involved.’”22 “This means that, throughout the litigation, the
plaintiff ‘must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury traceable to the
16 Shero v. City of Grove, 510 F.3d 1196, 1200 (10th Cir. 2007).
17 Archuleta, 523 F.3d at 1283.
18 Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
19 Id.
20 Mays v. Wyandotte County Sheriff’s Dep’t, 2010 WL 6032763, at *2 (10th Cir. 2011) (citing
Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005)).
21 Smith v. Becerra, 44 F.4th 1238, 1247 (10th Cir. 2022) (citing Genesis Healthcare Corp. v.
Symczyk, 569 U.S. 66, 71, 133 S.Ct. 1523, 185 L.Ed.2d 636 (2013)).
22 Id.
Case 2:25-cv-02408-KHV-GEB Document 32 Filed 04/27/26 Page 6 of 10

7
defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.’”23 Because Article
III requires a case or controversy, a court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over a case that
is moot.24 “A case becomes moot ‘when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the
parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.’”25 “The crucial question is
whether granting a present determination of the issues offered ... will have some effect in
the real world.”26 The Court must take a claim-by-claim approach and “must decide
whether a case is moot as to ‘each form of relief sought.’”27 A claim for declaratory relief
is moot when the relief would not affect “the behavior of the defendant toward the
plaintiff.”28 Regarding a claim for declaratory relief, “a plaintiff must be seeking more than
a retrospective opinion that he was wrongly harmed by the defendant.”29
Plaintiff has one prayer for relief for all the three claims he brings. He seeks the
following relevant relief:
- Declare that Defendant’s rejection of Plaintiff’s Form N-336
was unlawful;
- Set aside (vacate) Defendant’s denial of Plaintiff’s Form N-
400;
- Remand the matter to USCIS for lawful adjudication;
23 Smith, 44 F.4th at 1247 (quoting Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d
43 (1998)).
24 Id. (citing Prison Legal News v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 944 F.3d 868, 879 (10th Cir. 2019)).
25 Id. (quoting City of Erie v. Pap’s A.M., 529 U.S. 277, 287, 120 S.Ct. 1382, 146 L.Ed.2d 265
(2000)).
26 Id. (quoting Citizens for Responsible Gov’t State Political Action Comm. v. Davidson, 236 F.3d
1174, 1182 (10th Cir. 2000) (quotations and citation omitted)).
27 Id. (quoting Prison Legal News v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 944 F.3d 868, 880 (10th Cir. 2019)).
28 Id. (quoting Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. Bureau of Reclamation, 601 F.3d 1096, 1110 (10th
Cir. 2010) (quotations and citation omitted)).
29 Id. at 1247-48 (quoting Jordan v. Sosa, 654 F.3d 1012, 1024 (10th Cir. 2011)).
Case 2:25-cv-02408-KHV-GEB Document 32 Filed 04/27/26 Page 7 of 10

8
- Order Defendant, in the alternative, to accept and adjudicate
Plaintiff’s Form N-336.
The Court will review the two claims related directly to Plaintiff’s Form N-336 first.
It is clear the relief Plaintiff seeks in the alternative, for Defendant to accept and adjudicate
his Form N-336, is moot. Plaintiff acknowledges one of the Form N-336 he submitted has
been filed and he received notice of hearing set for June 1, 2026. Plaintiff has already
received the relief he seeks, thus granting the relief requested would not have real world
effect. His request that the Court declare that Defendant’s rejection of Plaintiff's Form N-
336 was unlawful is also moot. Where an N-336 has been received and the hearing
regarding the denial of his application N-400 to proceed has been scheduled, the relief
sought has been provided. Therefore, such a declaration would amount to a retrospective
opinion he was wrongly harmed by the Defendant.
Turning to the two claims for relief related to Plaintiff’s N-400 application for
naturalization, the Court finds they are not moot. Plaintiff asks the Court to vacate
Defendant’s denial of Plaintiff’s Form N-400 and remand the matter to USCIS for lawful
adjudication. Although a hearing on the denial his N-400 application has been set for June
1, 2026, the denial has not been vacated and his application has not been remanded to
Defendant for adjudication. Plaintiff maintains a cognizable interest in the outcome of the
relief sought on his application.
Plaintiff’s claims for relief related to the Form N-400 are not moot. However, the
Court finds Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to state a claim for relief that is
plausible on its face and are therefore futile. Plaintiff, in his proposed Amended Complaint,
Case 2:25-cv-02408-KHV-GEB Document 32 Filed 04/27/26 Page 8 of 10

9
alleges: 1) he filed Form N-400 under INA § 329 based on honorable active duty military
service; 2) Defendant conducted a naturalization interview on December 9, 2025; 3)
Defendant subsequently denied Plaintiff’s application; and 4) he timely filed Form N-336
requesting a hearing on the denial. He does not, however, allege the basis for denial of his
application, for example he failed to meet good character requirement for at least 1 year
prior to the filing of his application until the time of his naturalization30 or he failed to
satisfy the permanent residence requirement;31 whether or how the denial was improper;
any grounds for vacating the denial; or his eligibility and compliance with all naturalization
requirements.32 The Court, therefore finds all Plaintiff’s claims for relief, as pled, are futile
either based upon mootness or the failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted.
III. Notice
Within fourteen (14) days after a party is served with a copy of this Report and
Recommendation, any party may, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(2), file written objections to this Report and Recommendation. A party must file any
objections within the fourteen-day period if the party wants to have appellate review of the
proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, or recommended disposition.
30 8 C.F.R. § 329.2(d).
31 8 C.F.R. § 329.2(c).
32 Yeshiambel v. United States Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., 733 F. Supp. 3d 1112, 1115–16 (D.
Kan. 2024) (A naturalization applicant bears the burden of showing his eligibility and compliance
with all naturalization requirements.)
Case 2:25-cv-02408-KHV-GEB Document 32 Filed 04/27/26 Page 9 of 10

10
IV. Conclusion
After careful review and being mindful Plaintiff proceeds pro se, the undersigned
concludes the proposed Amended Complaint is futile.
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File
Amended Complaint BE DENIED based upon futility (ECF No. 28).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDRED where Plaintiff filed his Second Motion, the Court
DENIES AS MOOT his Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint (“First Motion”)
(ECF No. 17).
IT IS ORDERED that a copy of this recommendation shall be mailed to Plaintiff
by certified mail. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Plaintiff
may file a written objection to the proposed findings and recommendations with the clerk
of the district court within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this report
and recommendation. Failure to make a timely objection waives appellate review of both
factual and legal questions.33
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 27th day of April, 2026.
s/ Gwynne E. Birzer
GWYNNE E. BIRZER
U.S. Magistrate Judge
33 Morales-Fernandez v. I.N.S., 418 F.3d 1116, 1119 (10th Cir. 2005).
Case 2:25-cv-02408-KHV-GEB Document 32 Filed 04/27/26 Page 10 of 10