INDIRA TALWANI, District Judge.
In 1981, this court naturalized Petitioner Hang Chi Wu and issued a Certificate of Naturalization. Wu now seeks to correct her birth date on her naturalization certificate. Mot. to Am. Certificate of Naturalization ("Mot. to Am.") [#1]. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) opposes the motion. For the following reasons, Wu's motion is ALLOWED.
The following facts were provided by Wu and have not been disputed by USCIS. Wu was born in the Republic of China in 1952. Revised Affidavit of Hilda Hang Chi Wu ("Wu Second Affidavit"), Ex. B — Notarial Certificate & Translation Certificate [#16]. In 1974, she travelled to Hong Kong where her father lived. Wu Second Affidavit, ¶ 7. Her father entered her birth year as 1955 on forms so that she could attend school.
In the United States, Wu used her real birth date on her medical records, and with the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles.
Wu subsequently applied for naturalization and again incorrectly entered her birth year as 1955.
Wu unsuccessfully sought to correct her birth date with immigration officials on multiple occasions.
The parties agree that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6), this court can amend a judgment it has entered, including a naturalization certificate. Under Rule 60(b)(1) through (b)(5), a judgment may be amended for a series of reasons not applicable here, while Rule 60(b)(6) allows amendment "for any other reason that justifies relief." A motion under 60(b)(6) must be made "within a reasonable time." Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1).
Rule 60(b)(6) is "extraordinary relief" requiring a party show (1) the existence of exceptional circumstances justifying extraordinary relief, (2) the absence of unfair prejudice to the opposing party, and (3) timeliness.
The court begins by considering Wu's need for amending the certificate judgment and whether the government will be prejudiced by amendment.
At the same time, amending the judgment granting Wu naturalization would allow Wu to obtain a Real ID Act compliant driver's license. Ensuring that she uses a single, correct birthdate serves the Congressional purpose of the Real ID Act by improving the reliability and accuracy of her state-issued identification documents.
In addition, there is no disputed fact such that it would burden the government for the court to amend the original judgment. Wu has submitted proof that her true birth date is 1952 not 1955 and the government does not contest the document's validity. Wu Second Affidavit, Ex. B — Notarial Certificate [#16]. The government does not allege that Wu is engaged in fraud or has bad faith motivations in filing to correct the court's judgment. Accordingly, the government is not prejudiced by the correction of the original naturalization judgment.
Timeliness is a more difficult hurdle. Wu certainly should have filed her motion earlier. However, the listing of Wu's incorrect birth date in the court's original judgment granting her naturalization remains a present and ongoing problem for both Wu and the government since the judgment does not correspond with her other governmental documents with a correct birthdate. On the unique facts in front of the court, the court finds that amending the judgment is timely so that the continuing harm caused by the incorrect information in the court's judgment can be cured.
Thus, after engaging in an "holistic appraisal of the circumstances,"
Accordingly, Wu's
The government shall file a status report by January 15, 2020, indicating whether this matter is resolved and, if the matter is not resolved, what, if any, further action by the court is necessary to its resolution.
IT IS SO ORDERED.