Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAWIT MAKONNEN, Case No.: 3:26-cv-00860-AGS-VET 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING USCIS’ 13 v. MOTION TO FILE A-FILE UNDER SEAL 14 DOES 1–10, all in their official capacities, 15 Defendants. [ECF No. 15] 16 17 18 19 20 Before the Court is the United States Citizenship & Immigration Services’ 21 (“USCIS”) unopposed Motion to File A-File Under Seal. ECF No. 15 (“Motion”). USCIS 22 requests to file Petitioner Dawit Makonnen’s (“Petitioner”) alien file (“A-File”) under seal 23 in connection with his Petition (ECF No. 1) to correct his date of birth on his Certificate of 24 Naturalization. See ECF Nos. 1, 13, 14, 15. Defendant lodged a sealed copy of the A-File. 25 ECF No. 16. Based on a review of the record and the Motion, the Court GRANTS the 26 Motion for the reasons set forth below. 27 28 1 I. LEGAL STANDARD 2 “[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public 3 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner 4 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one ‘traditionally 5 kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Kamakana v. 6 City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm 7 Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). “The presumption of access is 8 ‘based on the need for federal courts, although independent—indeed, particularly because 9 they are independent—to have a measure of accountability and for the public to have 10 confidence in the administration of justice.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 11 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 12 (2d Cir. 1995)). 13 A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the strong 14 presumption of access. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. To overcome this presumption of access, 15 the party must demonstrate either “good cause” or “compelling reasons” to seal a record, 16 depending on the motion to which the record relates. Ctr. for Auto, 809 F.3d at 1096–97. 17 If the underlying motion is more than tangentially related to the merits, the “compelling 18 reasons” standard applies. Id. at 1096–98. When the underlying motion does not surpass 19 this threshold, the “good cause” standard applies. Id. Further, “[e]ven if it may be 20 appropriate to seal a document in its entirety, a party should still redact records whenever 21 possible.” Craig v. Am. Tuna, Inc., No. 22-cv-00473, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211558, at 22 *10 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2023). 23 II. ANALYSIS 24 First, the Court finds that the “compelling reason” standard applies to the Motion. 25 Petitioner moves the Court to amend his date of birth on his Certificate of Naturalization 26 issued by the Court on April 29, 1988. ECF Nos. 1 at 1–2, 13 at 1. USCIS moves to file 27 Plaintiff’s A-File under seal to assist the Court with evaluating the Petition. ECF No. 15 at 28 1. Because the A-File contains Petitioner’s immigration history (see ECF No. 15 at 2), it is 1 ||relevant to the merits of the Petition. Accordingly, the A-File is more than tangentially 2 ||related to the merits of the case. 3 Second, the Court finds there are compelling reasons to grant the Motion. 4 ||Petitioner’s A-File includes Petitioner’s asylum application and personally identifiable 5 ||information such as his social security number, birthday, home address, and employment 6 history. See ECF No. 16. Thus, the A-File includes private, sensitive, and confidential 7 information that is not publicly available. See, e.g., Sultonkulov v. Casey, No. 26-CV-848- 8 || JLS-DEB, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58288, at *3-4 (S.D. Cal. March 19, 2026) (granting 9 ||motion to seal certain documents because they contained confidential information related 10 || to the substance of petitioner’s asylum application); Doe v. Becerra, 787 F. Supp. 3d 1083, 11 || 1095-96 (E.D. Cal. 2025) (granting motion to seal any information related to petitioner’s 12 |}asylum application due to the sensitive nature of the allegations). Moreover, any attempt 13 ||to redact such information within the A-File would be impractical. For these reasons, 14 ||sealing the A-File in its entirety is appropriate. 15 || CONCLUSION 16 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion to File A-File Under Seal. ECF No. 17 The Clerk of the Court SHALL FILE the Lodgment (ECF No. 16) UNDER SEAL. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. SK 19 Dated: August 13, 2026 20 Honorable Valerie E. Torres United States Magistrate Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28