govinfo:USCOURTS-ksd-2_25-cv-02408-3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS 
 
OLEG CHURYUMOV, ) 
 ) 
 Plaintiff, ) CIVIL ACTION 
 ) 
v. ) No. 25-2408-KHV 
 ) 
UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND ) 
IMMIGRATION SERVICES, ) 
 ) 
 Defendant. ) 
____________________________________________) 
 
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 
 
 This matter is before the Court on the Order And Notice And Report Of Recommendation 
(Doc. #32) which Magistrate Judge Gwynne E. Birzer filed April 27, 2026. Judge Birzer 
recommended that Plaintiff’s Motion For Leave To File Amended Complaint (Doc. #28) filed 
March 26, 2026 be denied as to defendant’s rejection of his Form N-336 on grounds of mootness. 
In Plaintiff’s Objections To Report A nd Recommendation (Doc. #33) filed April 29, 2026, 
plaintiff agrees that such claims “can be moot .” The Court therefor e adopts Judge Birzer’s 
recommendation and denies plaintiff leave to amend to assert that claim. 
 Judge Birzer recommended that plaintiff be deni ed leave to assert two claims related to his 
N-400 application because, as pl ed, plaintiff had not alleged facts sufficient to support an 
actionable claim for relief. Plai ntiff responds that he can suppl y the missing fact ual detail, so 
amendment would not be futile. If granted leave to amend, plaintif f would allege that when the 
USCIS denied his Form N-400 application for naturalization on January 29, 2026, it acted upon 
disputed and legally deficient grounds. Plaintiff filed a Form N-336 seeking administrative review 
of that action, however, and that matter is set for hearing on June 1, 2026. Plaintiff’s sole prayer 
for relief as to the Form N-400 is that the Court vacate defendant’ s denial of his application for 

 
 
 
 
 
-2- 
 
 
naturalization. As to that claim, it appears that plaintiff is still in the process of exhausting his 
administrative remedies. District courts may review, de novo, the denial of a naturalization 
application only after the applicant has completed the entire naturalizati on process. 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1421(c). This requires the applicant to request a hearing before an immigration officer, if his or 
her application is denied by filing a Form N-336, Request for a Hearing on a Decision in 
Naturalization Proceedings (Under Section 336 of the INA). The Immigration and Naturalization 
Act provides as follows: 
A person whose application for naturalization under th is subchapter is denied, after a 
hearing before an immigration officer under section 1447(a) of this title, may seek review 
of such denial before the United States district court for the district in which such a person 
resides in accordance with chapter 7 of title 5. 
 
8 U.S.C. § 1421(c). Additionally, a “determinati on denying an application for naturalization . . . 
shall not be subject to judicial review until the applicant has exhausted those administrative 
remedies available to the applicant under section 336 of the Act. 8 C.F.R. § 336.9(d). Exhaustion 
of the administrative remedies is mandatory. Escaler v. U.S. C itizenship & Immigration Serv., 
582 F.3d 288, 291 (2d Cir. 2009). 
 Here, plaintiff has not exhausted his administr ative remedies related to the appeal of the 
denial of his naturalization application, so he cannot seek review of his naturalization denial. See, 
e.g., Abiodun v. Gonzales, 217 Fed. Appx. 738, 741 n.4 (1 0th Cir. 2007); Idahosa v. Bureau of 
Immigration and Customs Enf’t, 111 Fed. Appx. 293, 294 (5th Cir. 2004) (per curiam); Hong Yin 
v. Frazier, 804 F. Supp. 2d 969, 972 (D .S.D. 2011). Plaintiff is not entitled to review because he 
has not exhausted his administrative remedies by completing the N-336 process. 
 Plaintiff does not identify factual detail which an amended complaint might include to 
avoid futility based on failure to exhaust. Specifically, plaintiff fails to identify facts which would 

 
 
 
 
 
-3- 
 
 
excuse further administrative exhaustion as satisfied or rendered unavailable due to agency error. 
The Court therefore adopts Judge Birzer’s report and recomme ndation and denies Plaintiff’s 
Motion For Leave To File Amended Complaint (Doc. #28) filed March 26, 2026, in its entirety. 
 Plaintiff does not object to J udge Birzer’s recommendation that his first motion, Plaintiff’s 
Motion For Leave To Amend The Complaint (Doc . #17) filed January 9, 2026, be overruled as 
moot. The Court therefore overrules it as well. If, after exhausting the administrative process, the 
status of plaintiff’s applicati on is unchanged, he may file a la wsuit. Idahosa, 111 Fed. Appx. at 
294; 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c). However, that lawsui t would involve different conduct, it requires a 
separate form and process, it requires a new ground for relief (a s opposed to an interview and 
adjudication) and would fall under different federal statutes. 
 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Order And Notice And Report Of 
Recommendation (Doc. #32) filed April 27, 2026 is ADOPTED. 
 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion For Leave To File Amended 
Complaint (Doc. #28) filed March 26, 2026 is OVERRULED in its entirety. 
 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion For Leave To Amend The 
Complaint (Doc. #17) filed January 9, 2026 is OVERRULED as moot. 
 Dated this 26th day of Ma y, 2026 at Kansas City, Kansas. 
 s / K a t h r y n H . V r a t i l 
 KATHRYN H. VRATIL 
 United States District Judge 

Passage view · GavelSight