Chukwuma E. Azubuko v. DISTRICT DIRECTOR DENIS C. RIORDAN of United States Department of Homeland Security…

APS-378 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-2585
________________
CHUKWUMA E. AZUBUKO,
Appellant
v.
DISTRICT DIRECTOR DENIS C. RIORDAN
of United States Department of
Homeland Security
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the District of Delaware
(D.C. Civ. No. 05-CV-00095)
District Judge: Honorable Sue L. Robinson
_______________________________________
Submitted For Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action
Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
September 29, 2005
Before: SLOVITER, FUENTES AND NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: October 13, 2005)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM

-- 1 of 3 --

Chukwuma E. Azubuko appeals from an order of the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware. Azubuko had filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1981 (which addresses racial discrimination in the making of contracts) and 8 U.S.C.
§ 1422 (which addresses the right of a person to become a naturalized citizen of the
United States). The District Court dismissed the complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). We similarly will dismiss the appeal pursuant to that statute.
Azubuko’s rambling complaint apparently sought review of a decision by the
District Director of the United States Department of Homeland Security to deny
Azubuko’s application for naturalization. The exhibits attached to Azubuko’s complaint
indicate that the District Director issued a decision on September 24, 2004, denying
Azubuko’s application because he failed to submit a certified final court disposition for a
March 26, 2004 assault and battery arrest, and information concerning court appearances
in 1989 for assault and battery and in 1992 for a suspended/revoked driver’s license. The
District Director stated that because Azubuko failed to submit the materials, he had failed
to meet the burden of demonstrating that he had been and continued to be a person of
good moral character, a prerequisite to naturalization. See 8 C.F.R. § 316.10(a)(1).
The District Court properly noted that an applicant seeking review of an adverse
naturalization decision must exhaust administrative remedies, and must file the petition
for review in the United States District Court having jurisdiction over his residence.
8 C.F.R. § 336.9(b) and (d). Azubuko has not disputed the District Court’s finding that

-- 2 of 3 --

he failed to show that he exhausted administrative remedies; nor did he rebut the District
Court’s statement that the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
would be the proper venue for any petition challenging the naturalization decision. Thus,
the claims raised pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1422 were properly dismissed.
We further agree, for the reasons stated by the District Court, that Azubuko failed
to make any showing that would support a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981. As the
appeal is legally frivolous, it will be dismissed.

-- 3 of 3 --