1 CECILLIA D. WANG (CSB #187782) LUCAS GUTTENTAG (CSB #90208)
2 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
3 IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT 39 Drumm Street
4 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 343-0775
5 Facsimile: (415) 395-0950 Email: CWang@aclu.org
6 Attorneys for Petitioners
7 *Additional counsel listed on following page

8

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

12

YINAN ZHANG, ALIA AHMEDI, ZHONG

13 FU, ABDUL GHAFOOR, MIAO LING

HUANG, SANA JALILI, YAN WANG, YAN

14 YIN,

Case No. 07-CV-0503-JL

15

Plaintiffs-Petitioners,

16

v.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR

DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE

17 DAVID STILL, District Director, U.S.

RELIEF AND PETITION FOR

Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of NATURALIZATION PURSUANT TO 8

18 Citizenship and Immigration Services, San

U.S.C. § 1447(B)

Francisco District; EMILIO T. GONZALEZ,

19 Director, U.S. Department of Homeland

Security, Bureau of Citizenship and

CLASS ACTION

20 Immigration Services; MICHAEL

CHERTOFF, U.S. Secretary of Homeland

21 Security; ROBERT S. MUELLER III, Director

of the Federal Bureau of Investigation;

22 ALBERTO GONZALES, Attorney General of

the United States,

23

Defendants-Respondents.

24

25

26

27

28
1
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION PURSUANT TO 8 U.S.C. § 1447(B)

1 Additional counsel:

2 JULIA HARUMI MASS (CSB #189649) ALAN L. SCHLOSSER (CSB #49957)
3 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
4 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111
5 Telephone: (415) 621-2493 Facsimile: (415) 255-8437
6 SIN YEN LING*
7 JOREN LYONS (CSB #203403) ASIAN LAW CAUCUS
8 939 Market Street, Suite 201 San Francisco, CA 94103
9 Telephone: (415) 896-1701 Facsimile: (415) 896-1702
10 *Application for admission pro hac vice forthcoming
11

12 Of counsel:

13 TODD GALLINGER (CSB #238666)

COUNCIL ON AMERICAN-ISLAMIC RELATIONS

14

(CAIR) – SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA

3000 Scott Boulevard, Suite 212

15 Santa Clara, CA 95054

Telephone: (408) 986-9874

16 Facsimile: (408) 986-9875

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
2
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION PURSUANT TO 8 U.S.C. § 1447(B)

1

INTRODUCTION

2

1. Plaintiffs-Petitioners, Yinan ZHANG, Alia AHMEDI, Zhong FU, Abdul

3 GHAFOOR, Miao Ling HUANG, Sana JALILI, Yan WANG, and Yan YIN, respectfully submit

4 this First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Petition for

5 Naturalization Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). Plaintiff Yinan ZHANG originally filed this

6 action as an individual petition for naturalization under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). The Plaintiffs

7 amend Mr. Zhang’s original petition as of right pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)

8 (permitting amendment of pleading “once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive

9 pleading is served”). This First Amended Complaint pleads additional causes of action and

10 allegations supporting a motion for class certification to be filed in due course.

11

2. Plaintiffs are all long-time lawful permanent residents of the United States. Each

12 of them has sought to become a citizen of this country by applying for naturalization, having met

13 all statutory requirements. However, despite successfully undergoing their naturalization

14 interviews and clearing criminal background checks more than approximately two years ago,

15 none of the Plaintiffs has received an adjudication from the U.S. Bureau of Citizenship and

16 Immigration Services (“CIS”) on the ground that a so-called “FBI name check” is still pending.

17

3. Defendants are officers of CIS and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”)

18 and are responsible for the naturalization process, including the FBI name check, which CIS

19 requires for naturalization despite the absence of any promulgated rule or regulation.

20

4. Each Plaintiff therefore seeks to be naturalized by this Court, as Congress has

21 authorized through the Immigration and Nationality Act. See 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) (district court

22 may make a determination of a naturalization application if there has been no adjudication within

23 120 days of an initial examination – i.e., the applicant’s naturalization interview. See U.S. v.

24 Hovsepian, 359 F.3d 1144, 1151 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc).

25

5. In failing to adjudicate the Plaintiffs’ naturalization applications, Defendant

26 officers of CIS have violated CIS regulations requiring that such applications be adjudicated

27 within 120 days of the initial examination. 8 C.F.R. § 335.

28

6. In addition, Defendant officers of both CIS and the Federal Bureau of

3
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION PURSUANT TO 8 U.S.C. § 1447(B)

1 Investigation (“FBI”) have engaged in unreasonable and extraordinary delay in adjudicating

2 Plaintiffs’ naturalization applications, in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act, 5

3 U.S.C. §§ 555, 706, and the Due Process Clause.

4

7. Defendants’ rationale for its unreasonable delays – that the delays are required to

5 complete “FBI name checks” – highlights an independent violation of the Administrative

6 Procedures Act: Defendants’ failure to follow the notice and comment requirements of 5 U.S.C.

7 § 553. CIS has promulgated no regulations concerning a “name check,” but nonetheless has

8 imposed the FBI name check as a requirement for five years – without any deadlines for

9 completion of the checks. In contrast, immigration regulations do provide for criminal records

10 checks based on Plaintiffs’ fingerprints and biographical data. Each of the Plaintiffs has passed

11 those specific background checks. Because Defendants’ addition of the FBI name check

12 constituted a substantive rule and causes undue burden and prejudice to Plaintiffs and other

13 members of the proposed class, the public should have been provided notice and an opportunity

14 to comment prior to its implementation.

15

8. Plaintiffs all have spent many years in the United States and have made this

16 Nation their home. They seek to pledge their allegiance to their adopted country and to

17 participate fully in U.S. society as citizens. Each of the Plaintiffs has met the statutory

18 requirements to become a U.S. citizen, and in many cases have sought relief through requests to

19 representatives in Congress and through formal inquiries with the government. Nonetheless,

20 each of the Plaintiffs has been stymied in his or her efforts by the unreasonable and extraordinary

21 delay of the Respondents.

22

9. As a result of the Defendants’ failure to abide by the law, which is inconsistent

23 with properly promulgated regulations and with the statutes passed by Congress, Plaintiffs are

24 unable to participate in civic society by voting and jury service. Plaintiffs also are unable

25 expeditiously to sponsor for lawful permanent residency for immediate relatives living abroad

26 including, in some cases, their spouses and children. Plaintiffs also are unable to participate

27 freely as U.S. citizens in the Visa Waiver Program and to travel abroad and return to the United

28 States without fear of exclusion.
4
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION PURSUANT TO 8 U.S.C. § 1447(B)

1

10. Plaintiffs seek not only their own naturalization through 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), but

2 also seek declaratory and injunctive relief as representatives of a class of other individuals who

3 have satisfied all statutory requirements for naturalization and are suffering similar unreasonable

4 delays of over 120 days since their naturalization interviews. Plaintiffs ask the Court to declare

5 that the Defendants are violating the due process rights of the Plaintiffs, as well as the

6 Administrative Procedures Act and the immigration laws and regulations, in failing to complete

7 all background checks necessary for adjudication of Plaintiffs’ naturalization applications within

8 120 days of their interviews.

9

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

10

11. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §

11 1447(b) (district court jurisdiction to adjudicate delayed naturalization applications), 28 U.S.C.

12 §§ 1331 (federal question), and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 (declaratory relief).

13

12. Venue is proper in the Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§

14 1391(e). Plaintiffs sue the Defendants in their official capacities as officers and employees of the

15 United States. A substantial portion of the events giving rise to this Complaint occurred within

16 this District, where the Plaintiffs’ applications for naturalization are pending before the San

17 Francisco District of the CIS. In addition, venue is proper in this District pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §

18 1447(b), which provides that a petition for de novo review of a naturalization application shall be

19 filed in the district in which the applicant resides. All of the Plaintiffs live within this District.

20

PARTIES

21

13. Plaintiff Yinan Zhang is a citizen of China. He is a lawful permanent resident of

22 the United States and lives in San Francisco, California. He applied for naturalization with CIS

23 and passed his naturalization examination in 2002. His naturalization application has not been

24 adjudicated.

25

14. Plaintiff Alia Ahmedi is a citizen of Pakistan. She is a lawful permanent resident

26 of the United States and lives in Fremont, California. She applied for naturalization with CIS

27 and passed her naturalization examination in May 2003. Her naturalization application has not

28 been adjudicated.
5
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION PURSUANT TO 8 U.S.C. § 1447(B)

1

15. Plaintiff Zhong Fu is a citizen of China. He is a lawful permanent resident of the

2 United States, and he resides in San Francisco, California. He applied for naturalization with

3 CIS and passed his naturalization examination in July 2004. His naturalization application has

4 not been adjudicated.

5

16. Plaintiff Abdul Ghafoor is a citizen of Pakistan. He is a lawful permanent

6 resident of the United States, and he resides in Richmond, California. He applied for

7 naturalization with CIS and passed his naturalization examination in October 2004. His

8 naturalization application has not been adjudicated.

9

17. Plaintiff Sana Jalili is a citizen of Pakistan. She is a lawful permanent resident of

10 the United States, and she resides in Fremont, California. She applied for naturalization with

11 CIS and passed her naturalization examination in September 2004. Her naturalization

12 application has not been adjudicated.

13

18. Plaintiff Miao Ling Huang is a citizen of China. She is a lawful permanent

14 resident of the United States, and she resides in San Francisco, California. She applied for

15 naturalization with CIS and passed her naturalization examination in June 2004. Her

16 naturalization application has not been adjudicated.

17

19. Plaintiff Yan Wang is a citizen of China. She is a lawful permanent resident of

18 the United States, and she resides in San Francisco, California. She applied for naturalization

19 with CIS and passed her naturalization examination in January 2004. Her naturalization

20 application has not been adjudicated.

21

20. Plaintiff Yan Yin is a citizen of Canada. She is a lawful permanent resident of the

22 United States, and she resides in Fremont, California. She applied for naturalization with CIS

23 and passed her naturalization examination in March 2004. Her naturalization application has not

24 been adjudicated.

25

21. Respondent David Still is the District Director for the San Francisco District of

26 the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (“CIS”), U.S. Department of Homeland

27 Security. Mr. Still is responsible for applications for naturalization pending in the San Francisco

28 District. Mr. Still is sued in his official capacity.
6
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION PURSUANT TO 8 U.S.C. § 1447(B)

1

22. Respondent Emilio T. Gonzalez is the Director of CIS. Mr. Gonzalez is

2 responsible for the processing and determination of all applications for naturalization submitted

3 to CIS. He is sued in his official capacity.

4

23. Respondent Michael Chertoff is the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, which

5 encompasses CIS. Mr. Chertoff is ultimately responsible for the administration of all

6 immigration and naturalization laws, including the processing and determination of applications

7 for naturalization. He is sued in his official capacity.

8

24. Respondent Robert S. Mueller III is the Director of the Federal Bureau of

9 Investigation. Mr. Mueller is ultimately responsible for the processing of “name checks”

10 submitted by CIS to the FBI during the naturalization process. Mr. Mueller is sued in his official

11 capacity.

12

25. Respondent Alberto Gonzales is the Attorney General of the United States. He is

13 the head of the U.S. Department of Justice, which encompasses the FBI. Mr. Gonzales also

14 jointly responsible with Mr. Chertoff for enforcement of immigration laws. Mr. Gonzales is

15 sued in his official capacity.

16

LEGAL FRAMEWORK

17

26. Federal immigration law allows persons who have been residing in the United

18 States as lawful permanent residents to become United States citizens through a process known

19 as naturalization.

20

27. A person seeking to naturalize must meet certain requirements, including an

21 understanding of the English language and history and civics of the United States; a sufficient

22 period of physical presence in the United States; and good moral character. 8 U.S.C. § 1423,

23 1427(a).

24

28. Persons seeking to naturalize must submit an application for naturalization to CIS.

25 8 U.S.C. § 1445. CIS is the agency that is responsible for adjudicating naturalization

26 applications. 8 C.F.R. § 100.2.

27

29. Once an application is submitted, CIS conducts a background investigation of

28 each naturalization applicant. 8 U.S.C. § 1446(a); 8 C.F.R. § 335.1.
7
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION PURSUANT TO 8 U.S.C. § 1447(B)

1

30. According to CIS regulations, the background investigation includes a full

2 criminal background check performed by the FBI. 8 C.F.R. § 335.2. After the background

3 investigation is completed, CIS schedules a naturalization examination, at which an applicant

4 meets with a CIS examiner who is authorized to ask questions and take testimony. The CIS

5 examiner must determine whether to grant or deny the naturalization application. 8 U.S.C. §

6 1446(d).

7

31. CIS must grant a naturalization application if the applicant has complied with all

8 requirements for naturalization. 8 C.F.R. § 335.3. Naturalization is not a discretionary benefit,

9 but a right upon satisfaction of statutory requirements.

10

32. CIS must grant or deny a naturalization application at the time of the examination

11 or, at the latest, within 120 days after the date of the examination. 8 C.F.R. § 335.3. Once an

12 application is granted, the applicant is sworn in as a United States citizen.

13

33. In general, Congress has provided that applications for immigration benefits

14 should be adjudicated within 180 days of the initial filing of the application. 8 U.S.C. § 1571.

15

34. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that in 2002, CIS added – without

16 promulgating any regulation – a new type of background check to the naturalization process,

17 known as a “name check.” A “name check” is a check of FBI records based on the full name of

18 the applicant. The FBI conducts the “name check” through manual and electronic searches of

19 the FBI’s centralized records. CIS requests the FBI to conduct “name checks” on all applications

20 for naturalization.

21

35. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the FBI name check requirement is

22 implemented in such a manner that it is highly likely that an applicant may be identified

23 erroneously as a person “of interest” to the FBI, thereby delaying adjudication of the

24 naturalization application, even though the applicant has committed no crimes and is not a

25 suspect. For example, the name check may identify a different person with a name similar to the

26 applicant’s, or result in a “hit” when the applicant has been an innocent witness or victim of a

27 crime.

28

36. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that CIS does not adjudicate applications for

8
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION PURSUANT TO 8 U.S.C. § 1447(B)

1 naturalization until it receives a completed “name check” from the FBI. CIS has not

2 promulgated any regulations setting forth the “name check” as a prerequisite for naturalization.

3 Neither CIS nor the FBI imposes any time limits for completion of “name checks.” The FBI

4 claims that CIS determines the order of resolution of the requested “name checks,” and CIS

5 claims that it cannot ask or require the FBI to complete “name checks” within any particular

6 timeframe.

7

37. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that in April 2006, CIS implemented a new

8 policy or practice of delaying naturalization examinations until after the “name check” is

9 completed. Thus, for certain applicants for naturalization, lengthy delays in adjudication occur

10 prior to the examination, rather than after the examination.

11

38. When CIS fails to adjudicate a naturalization application within 120 days of the

12 examination, the applicant may seek de novo review of the application by a district court. 8

13 U.S.C. § 1447(b). When the applicant requests district court review, the district court gains

14 exclusive jurisdiction over the application, United States v. Hovsepian, 359 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir.

15 2004), and it may naturalize the applicant. 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b).

16

FACTS

17 Plaintiffs

18

39. Yinan Zhang is a 33-year old native and citizen of China. He has been a lawful

19 permanent resident of the United States since September 1995, when he adjusted his status

20 through his U.S.-citizen father’s petition. Mr. Zhang currently works as a family caregiver for

21 his ailing father, Zu Ying Zhang. Mr. Zhang and his father live in San Francisco, California.

22

40. Mr. Zhang submitted his naturalization application on July 2001 and successfully

23 completed his naturalization interview and criminal background checks in September 2002. The

24 day after passing his naturalization interview, a CIS officer telephoned Mr. Zhang and asked him

25 to provide proof of selective service registration. Soon thereafter in September 2002, Mr. Zhang

26 submitted the requested “status information letter,” thereby satisfying the requirements for

27 naturalization. He meets all other statutory requirements for naturalization.

28

41. Mr. Zhang has been waiting more than four years since his interview, and has yet

9
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION PURSUANT TO 8 U.S.C. § 1447(B)

1 to receive an adjudication of his application. Mr. Zhang attempted to check on the status of his

2 application through an automated CIS customer service line, but the system stated that a final

3 decision cannot be made on any application until national security checks are complete. During

4 the past four years, Mr. Zhang has followed up with further contacts with CIS by telephone and

5 in person. Each time, immigration officers have informed him that his application is pending

6 due to the FBI name check.

7

42. Mr. Zhang has suffered and continues to suffer prejudice from the delay of his

8 naturalization. He has been deprived of the substantial and unique rights and duties of U.S.

9 citizenship, including the right to vote, the right to obtain a U.S. passport, the right to travel

10 freely, and the right to receive certain governmental and non-governmental benefits, such as

11 tuition assistance and scholarships.

12

43. Alia Ahmedi is a 73-year-old native and citizen of Afghanistan. She came to the

13 United States as a lawful permanent resident in November 1986, sponsored by her son Basheer

14 Ahmedi, a U.S. citizen. Ms. Ahmedi and her husband, a U.S. citizen, currently live in Fremont,

15 California, with Basheer. She also has five other children living in the United States. Of her six

16 children, five are U.S. citizens. Ms. Ahmedi also has over 20 grandchildren, all U.S. citizens,

17 living in the United States.

18

44. In October 2002, Ms. Ahmedi applied for citizenship and successfully completed

19 her naturalization interview and criminal background checks in May 2003. She meets all other

20 statutory requirements for naturalization. At the end of the interview, the CIS officer told Ms.

21 Ahmedi that she had passed her examination and would receive her oath notice shortly.

22

45. Approximately three to four months after successfully passing her naturalization

23 examination, Ms. Ahmedi contacted CIS because she had not received her oath notice. A CIS

24 employee told Ms. Ahmedi that her application was still pending. Ms. Ahmedi has followed up

25 with further contacts with CIS by telephone and in person. Each time, CIS officers have

26 informed her that her naturalization application is still pending due to an FBI name check. She

27 also has had to re-submit her fingerprints as her application has been pending so long that CIS

28 informed her that her original fingerprint card “expired.” Ms. Ahmedi’s children also contacted
10
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION PURSUANT TO 8 U.S.C. § 1447(B)

1 their representatives in Congress for assistance. Representative Pete Stark made an inquiry to

2 CIS, which responded that a name check was pending.

3

46. Ms. Ahmedi has suffered harm from the delay of her naturalization. One of her

4 daughters lives outside of the U.S. part-time. Because it is extremely difficult for citizens of

5 Afghanistan to obtain visas, she is unable to visit her daughter and grandchildren while they are

6 abroad. In addition, Ms. Ahmedi is elderly and the anxiety surrounding the delay in the granting

7 of her citizenship has put extreme pressure on her already frail health. Indeed, Ms. Ahmedi

8 previously received disability assistance from the Social Security Administration, but those

9 benefits were cut off because lawful permanent residents are permitted such benefits for a limited

10 period of time.

11

47. Zhong Fu is a 69-year old native and citizen of China. He came to the United

12 States as a lawful permanent resident in March 1999, through the petition of his U.S.-citizen

13 mother. Mr. Fu is retired and currently caring for his elderly sick mother, who is 90 years old

14 and suffers from Alzheimer’s disease. Mr. Fu and his mother currently live in San Francisco,

15 California. Mr. Fu has a U.S.-citizen sister, and she resides in the Sunset District of San

16 Francisco, California. Mr. Fu’s deceased father was a U.S. citizen.

17

48. In or about February 2004, Mr. Fu submitted his citizenship application and

18 successfully completed his naturalization interview and criminal background checks on July

19 2004. He meets all other statutory requirements for naturalization. At the end of his interview,

20 the CIS officer informed him that he passed the tests for English and U.S. history and

21 government. Mr. Fu has been patiently waiting for his oath notice since that time.

22

49. Starting approximately three to four months after successfully passing his

23 naturalization examination, Mr. Fu contacted CIS on three separate occasions through the

24 “Infopass” online appointment scheduler. On each occasion, an immigration officer informed

25 Mr. Fu that his application was pending until national security checks are completed and the

26 local CIS office receives a response.

27

50. Mr. Fu has suffered prejudice from the delay of his naturalization. Since his

28 arrival in March 1999, Mr. Fu has never left the United States to visit family in China. He is
11
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION PURSUANT TO 8 U.S.C. § 1447(B)

1 currently living on his retirement income and therefore cannot afford to visit China on a frequent

2 basis. Due to the expense of travel, Mr. Fu would like to visit family members for an extended

3 period when he is able to afford the trip. However, as a lawful permanent resident, he is not

4 permitted to stay abroad more than six months at a time. By naturalizing, Mr. Fu will be able to

5 spend more time with family on the infrequent occasions that he can afford the airfare to China.

6

51. Abdul Ghafoor is a native and citizen of Pakistan. He has a bachelor’s degree in

7 Humanities from Bahauddin Zakariya University in Pakistan. He immigrated to the United

8 States as a lawful permanent resident in April 1999. He currently works for the U.S. Postal

9 Service as a mail carrier.

10

52. Mr. Ghafoor applied for naturalization in March 2004. He successfully

11 completed his naturalization examination and criminal background checks in October 2004 and

12 was told at that time that he should receive his notice within 120 days. Mr. Ghafoor meets all

13 other statutory requirements for naturalization. Nonetheless, his application has not been

14 adjudicated.

15

53. Despite numerous in-person and written inquiries to CIS, including inquiries

16 made by an attorney Mr. Ghafoor retained at his own expense to represent him with respect to

17 his pending naturalization application, CIS has failed to adjudicate his naturalization application.

18 Mr. Ghafoor has received notices from CIS saying that his background check is pending.

19

54. Mr. Ghafoor is suffering extreme prejudice from the delay in adjudication of his

20 naturalization application. His wife and four children live in Pakistan and he can afford to visit

21 them only once a year. Although he applied for them to join him in the United States in 2002,

22 the government has not yet granted them visas to reunite with him in the United States. They are

23 subject to long waiting periods due to Mr. Ghafoor’s status as a noncitizen. He seeks to

24 naturalize both to speed his family’s ability to join him in the United States and also because he

25 has been subjected repeatedly to secondary immigration inspections – including strip searches,

26 hours-long detentions that have caused him to miss connecting flights, and rude treatment –

27 when he has reentered the United States after visiting his wife and children in Pakistan.

28

55. Miao Ling Huang is a 46-year old native and citizen of China. She came to the

12
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION PURSUANT TO 8 U.S.C. § 1447(B)

1 United States as a lawful permanent resident in December 1998, through the petition of her

2 husband’s sister, a U.S. citizen. Ms. Huang and her husband, who is also a lawful permanent

3 resident, live in San Francisco, California with their two children, Tian H. Rong and Zijun Rong,

4 also lawful permanent residents. If Ms. Huang naturalizes, her youngest daughter, currently 13

5 years old, stands to derive automatic United States citizenship, pursuant to the Child Citizenship

6 Act of 2000. Ms. Huang currently works at the San Francisco Juvenile Hall as a food service

7 operator.

8

56. Ms. Huang applied for citizenship in November 2003 and successfully completed

9 her naturalization interview and criminal background checks in June 2004. She meets all of the

10 statutory requirements for naturalization. At the end of her interview, she was informed that she

11 passed the tests on English and U.S. history and government, but that a decision could not be

12 made on her application because background checks have not been completed.

13

57. Starting approximately three to four months after successfully passing her

14 naturalization examination, Ms. Huang contacted CIS to inquire about her oath notice. She was

15 told on several occasions that her application was pending for the completion of all necessary

16 background checks. In December 2005, Ms. Huang contacted U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer’s

17 office for assistance on her naturalization application. On January 2006, U.S. Senator Boxer’s

18 officer informed her application was pending due to a security check submitted to the FBI and

19 ultimately, that she must wait due to the sensitive nature of these clearances.

20

58. Ms. Huang has suffered harm from the delay of her naturalization. Her 68-year

21 old ailing mother lives in China. Ms. Huang would like to serve as her mother’s primary

22 caretaker, but has been unable to obtain the proper visa to petition for her mother to immigrate to

23 the United States. Upon naturalization, Ms. Huang will be able to petition for her mother to

24 immigrate more expeditiously. The delay in Ms. Huang’s naturalization has caused her great

25 anguish by making it impossible to care for her mother during these critical years.

26

59. Sana Jalili is a native and citizen of Pakistan. She came to the United States in

27 1995, at the age of 15, as a dependent of her parents, who had H-1 employment visas. Ms. Jalili

28 has been a lawful permanent resident of the United States in 2001. She attended high school on
13
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION PURSUANT TO 8 U.S.C. § 1447(B)

1 Long Island in New York, and graduated with honors. She then attended the State University of

2 New York at Stony Brook and graduated after only three years with a Bachelor of Science in

3 information systems. Following graduation, she worked as an IT specialist in the Information

4 Technology Leadership Program at Travelers Insurance Company. She later also served as a

5 Connecticut state court interpreter and offered multi-cultural classes in her town. She and her

6 husband, a U.S. citizen, married during Ms. Jalili’s second year of college. They now have two

7 U.S.-citizen children under the age of five. Mr. Jalili is currently home-schooling her daughters

8 full-time. Ms. Jalili’s husband supports the family financially as a project manager at IBM.

9

60. Ms. Jalili applied for naturalization in December 2003 and successfully passed her

10 interview and criminal background checks in September 2004. At the end of the interview, a

11 CIS officer informed her that she would receive a notice of oath ceremony within three weeks to

12 three months.

13

61. Ms. Jalili meets all statutory requirements for naturalization, but her application

14 has not been adjudicated. She has contacted CIS repeatedly, both in the Hartford, Connecticut,

15 office where she originally filed her application, and then in the San Jose and San Francisco

16 offices, after she and her husband moved to California. Ms. Jalili also sought assistance from

17 U.S. Representative Nancy Johnson and the CIS Ombudsman office, to no avail. CIS has

18 informed Ms. Jalili that her application is pending because of a name check.

19

62. Ms. Jalili is suffering prejudice from the delay in her naturalization application.

20 America is her home and she serves her local community in many ways. By delaying her

21 naturalization, the government has prevented her from enjoying the liberties and duties of

22 citizenship, including participation in the democratic process through voting. Ms. Jalili does not

23 have the same legal status as her husband and children, which is especially difficult when the

24 family travels together abroad. Upon gaining citizenship, Ms. Jalili also would like to apply for

25 interpreter positions with government agencies, which may require U.S. citizenship, and would

26 like to sponsor her parents for lawful permanent resident status so that her daughters can enjoy a

27 quality relationship with their grandparents.

28

63. Yan Wang is a 36-year old native and citizen of China. She came to the United

14
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION PURSUANT TO 8 U.S.C. § 1447(B)

1 States on a K-1 fiancee visa in February 1999 and became a lawful permanent resident on July

2 2000. Ms. Wang and her husband, a U.S. citizen, live in San Francisco, California. Ms. Wang is

3 currently attending City College in San Francisco and learning the English language while she

4 assists her husband, Patrick Mao, with his business.

5

64. In May 2003, Ms. Wang applied for citizenship and successfully completed her

6 naturalization interview and criminal background checks in January 2004. She meets all other

7 statutory requirements for naturalization. At the end of the interview, a CIS officer told Ms.

8 Wang that she passed her examination and would receive her oath shortly.

9

65. Approximately four months later after successfully passing her naturalization

10 examination, Ms. Wang contacted CIS because she had not received her oath notice. The

11 immigration office in San Francisco, California informed her that the application is pending

12 because of a name check. Ms. Wang has made approximately eight to nine inquiries with CIS in

13 the course of the last few years, and each time, she was informed that the FBI name check is not

14 complete.

15

66. Ms. Wang has suffered harm from the delay of her naturalization. Her ailing

16 father lives in China and she wishes to spend time with him. As a citizen, she would be able to

17 petition for lawful permanent resident status for her father so that she can care for him.

18

67. Yan Yin is a native of China and citizen of Canada who came to the United States

19 in 1996 on a TN visa, which is issued to professionals from Canada and Mexico. Ms. Yin, who

20 was a professor of physics in China, came to the United States to work on a project funded by the

21 U.S. Department of Energy. She now lives in Fremont and owns her own business there. Ms.

22 Yin has a sister in the Washington, D.C., area who is a U.S. citizen.

23

68. In August 2003, Ms. Yin applied for naturalization. In March 2004, she

24 successfully passed her naturalization examination and criminal background checks. She meets

25 all other statutory requirements for naturalization.

26

69. Despite Ms. Yin’s numerous inquiries with CIS, inquiries to Senator Barbara

27 Boxer and Representative Pete Stark, her repeated submission of fingerprints, and her receipt of

28 documents in response to a Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act request that showed no
15
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION PURSUANT TO 8 U.S.C. § 1447(B)

1 basis for denying naturalization, CIS has failed to adjudicate her application for naturalization.

2 CIS informed Ms. Yin that her background check had not been completed and in March 2006,

3 CIS informed Ms. Yin that it needed six additional months to process her application. In July

4 2006, CIS informed Ms. Yin that she should receive her citizenship in September 2006, but her

5 application has still not been adjudicated.

6

70. Ms. Yin has suffered prejudice from the delay in adjudication of her

7 naturalization. She contracts with the U.S. government as part of her business and is unable to

8 apply for certain grants because of her immigration status as a non-citizen. Because of her

9 immigrant status, Ms. Yin is unable to communicate with certain laboratories that are important

10 to her business. She is anxious to become a citizen so that she can travel and market her product

11 with more ease and flexibility.

12 Defendants’ Policies and Practices

13

71. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendants Still, Emilio Gonzalez and

14 Chertoff have a policy, pattern, and practice of failing to adjudicate the applications for

15 naturalization of the proposed plaintiff class within 120 days of the date of naturalization

16 examinations, because of years-long delays in the processing of “name checks.”

17

72. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendants Still, Emilio Gonzalez and

18 Chertoff have a policy, pattern, and practice of unlawfully withholding and unreasonably

19 delaying the adjudication of applications for naturalization of the proposed plaintiff class,

20 because of years-long delays in the processing of “name checks.”

21

73. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendants Mueller and Alberto Gonzales

22 have a policy, pattern, and practice of unlawfully withholding and unreasonably delaying the

23 completion of “name checks,” with the full knowledge that CIS requires the completion of such

24 “name checks” for adjudication of applications for naturalization of the proposed plaintiff class.

25

74. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendants have a policy, pattern and

26 practice of failing to set deadlines for completing “name checks” and taking all the other

27 reasonable steps necessary to complete the adjudication of applications for naturalization of the

28 proposed plaintiff class.
16
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION PURSUANT TO 8 U.S.C. § 1447(B)

1

75. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendants Still, Chertoff, Emilio

2 Gonzalez and Chertoff have a policy, pattern and practice of requiring “name checks” for

3 adjudication of applications for naturalization of the proposed plaintiff class, despite no statutory

4 or regulatory authorization for such “name checks.”

5

76. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendants do not have or use any

6 mechanisms to identify the number and status of naturalization cases in which applicants satisfy

7 all eligibility criteria, have passed naturalization interviews, and are awaiting adjudication solely

8 on the basis of FBI name checks. In addition, USCIS and FBI do not have any policies or

9 practices in place to ensure final adjudication of those naturalization applications.

10

77. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendants do not have or use any

11 mechanisms to track the number and status of naturalization cases in which applicants satisfy all

12 eligibility criteria, have passed naturalization examinations, and are awaiting adjudication for

13 more than 120 days after their naturalization examinations. In addition, USCIS and FBI do not

14 have any policies or practices in place to ensure final adjudication of those naturalization

15 applications.

16

78. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendants Still, Gonzalez and Chertoff

17 implemented the requirement of FBI name checks for naturalization without giving notice to the

18 public and allowing a period for public comment. The Administrative Procedures Act requires

19 such notice and comment because the FBI name check requirement is a substantive change in

20 prior CIS policy and because the requirement has an adverse effect on individuals by causing a

21 delay in adjudication of their naturalization applications.

22

79. As a result of the Defendants’ policies, practices, actions and omissions, members

23 of the proposed plaintiff class have suffered injury, in that they have been unlawfully denied the

24 rights and benefits of U.S. citizenship for approximately two years or more.

25

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

26

80. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly

27 situated pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2). The class, as proposed

28 by Plaintiffs, consists of:
17
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION PURSUANT TO 8 U.S.C. § 1447(B)

1

All persons who have submitted or will submit applications for naturalization to CIS, and

2

who have met all statutory requirements for naturalization, and whose applications for

3

naturalization are not adjudicated within 120 days of the date of their initial examination.

4

81. The requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2) are met

5 in that the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Counsel for

6 Plaintiffs are aware of at least another 99 proposed class members who are similarly situated to

7 the named Plaintiffs in this District alone. Counsel are aware of dozens of others similarly

8 situated elsewhere in California.

9

82. There are questions of law and fact common to the proposed class that

10 predominate over any questions affecting only the individually named Plaintiffs, including: (1)

11 whether CIS’s failure to adjudicate the applications for naturalization of the proposed plaintiff

12 class within 120 days of the date of naturalization examinations, due to delays in “name checks,”

13 violates the Due Process Clause, the Immigration and Nationality Act and implementing

14 regulations and the Administrative Procedures Act; (2) whether CIS’s imposition of a name

15 check requirement violates the notice and comment provision of the Administrative Procedures

16 Act; (3) whether the FBI’s actions in unlawfully withholding and unreasonably delaying the

17 completion of “name checks,” with the full knowledge that CIS requires the completion of such

18 “name checks” for adjudication of applications for naturalization of the proposed plaintiff class,

19 violates the Constitution and laws of the United States, including the Administrative Procedures

20 Act; and (4) whether CIS and the FBI’s failure to set deadlines for completing “name checks”

21 and failure to take all the other reasonable steps necessary to complete the adjudication of

22 applications for naturalization of the proposed plaintiff class, violates the Constitutiona nd laws

23 of the United States, including the Administrative Procedures Act.

24

83. The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the proposed class.

25 The named Plaintiffs, like all class members, have not had their applications for naturalization

26 adjudicated despite the passage of over 120 days since their naturalization examinations, and

27 they have been denied timely completion of “name checks” which CIS requires for adjudication

28 of their applications; and their applications for naturalization have been unlawfully withheld or
18
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION PURSUANT TO 8 U.S.C. § 1447(B)

1 unreasonably delayed on the basis of “name checks.”

2

84. Like the named Plaintiffs, members of the proposed class are suffering prejudice

3 from the delay of their naturalization applications, including the inability to participate in civic

4 society by voting and jury service, the effective inability to sponsor immediate relatives for

5 lawful permanent resident status, the inability to travel freely as U.S. citizens, and the harm of

6 having an uncertain status in the country they have made their home and where they have

7 established themselves as part of a community.

8

85. The named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests of all

9 members of the proposed class because they seek relief on behalf of the class as a whole and

10 have no interests antagonistic to other members of the class. The named Plaintiffs are

11 represented by pro bono counsel, including the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project, the ACLU of

12 Northern California and the Asian Law Caucus, who have extensive expertise in class action

13 litigation regarding the rights of immigrants. Finally, the Defendants have acted on grounds

14 generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief with respect

15 to the class as a whole.

16

DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ALLEGATIONS

17

86. An actual and substantial controversy exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants as

18 to their respective legal rights and duties. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants’ actions violate

19 Plaintiffs’ rights and the rights of proposed class members. Defendants contend the opposite.

20

87. Defendants’ failure to timely process Plaintiffs’ naturalization applications,

21 including any name check, has caused and will continue to cause irreparable injury to Plaintiffs

22 and other class members. Plaintiffs have no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law.

23

CAUSES OF ACTION

24

COUNT ONE

25

RIGHT TO DE NOVO JUDICIAL DETERMINATION

26

OF APPLICATION FOR NATURALIZATION

27

8 U.S.C. § 1447(B)

28

[By the Named Plaintiffs Against Defendants Still, Gonzalez and Chertoff]

19
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION PURSUANT TO 8 U.S.C. § 1447(B)

1

88. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 87 above are repeated and

2 incorporated as though fully set forth herein.

3

89. Because Respondents have failed to adjudicate each named Plaintiff’s

4 naturalization application within 120 days after the date of his naturalization examination, each

5 named Plaintiff is entitled to novo adjudication of his naturalization application by this Court

6 under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b).

7

90. This Court should grant each named Plaintiff’s naturalization application pursuant

8 to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), because each named Plaintiff meets all of the requirements for

9 naturalization under chapter 2 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1421 et seq.,

10 and therefore has a right to become a naturalized citizen of the United States.

11

COUNT TWO

12

UNREASONABLE DELAY

13

IN VIOLATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT

14

[By the Named Plaintiffs on Behalf of the Proposed Class Against All Defendants]

15

91. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 90 above are repeated and

16 incorporated as though fully set forth herein.

17

92. The Administrative Procedure Act requires administrative agencies to conclude

18 matters presented to them “within a reasonable time.” 5 U.S.C. § 555. A district court reviewing

19 agency action may “compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.” 5

20 U.S.C. § 706(1). The court also may hold unlawful and set aside agency action that, inter alia, is

21 found to be: “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with

22 law,” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A); “in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short

23 of statutory right,” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C); or “without observance of procedure required by law,”

24 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(D). “Agency action” includes, in relevant part, “an agency rule, order, license,

25 sanction, relief, or the equivalent or denial thereof, or failure to act.” 5 U.S.C. §551(13).

26

93. The failure of Defendants Still, Emilio Gonzalez and Chertoff to adjudicate the

27 applications for naturalization of the proposed plaintiff class within 120 days of the date of

28 naturalization examinations on the basis of “name checks,” in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1446(d)
20
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION PURSUANT TO 8 U.S.C. § 1447(B)

1 and 8 C.F.R. § 335, violates the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 555(b); 5 U.S.C. §§

2 706(1), 706(2)(A), 706(2)(C), 706(2)(D).

3

94. The failure of Defendants Alberto Gonzales and Mueller to timely complete

4 “name checks,” with the full knowledge that CIS requires the completion of such “name checks”

5 for adjudication of applications for naturalization of the proposed plaintiff class, violates the

6 Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 555(b); 5 U.S.C. §§ 706(1), 706(2)(A), 706(2)(C),

7 706(2)(D).

8

95. Defendants’ failure to set deadlines for completing “name checks,” to track the

9 number and status of naturalization cases awaiting final adjudication solely on the basis of FBI

10 name checks, to track the number and status of naturalization cases awaiting final adjudication

11 for more than 120 days after the naturalization examinations, and to take all the other reasonable

12 steps necessary to complete the adjudication of applications for naturalization of the proposed

13 plaintiff class, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1446(d) and 8 C.F.R. § 335, violates the Administrative

14 Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 555(b); 5 U.S.C. §§ 706(1), 706(2)(A), 706(2)(C), 706(2)(D).

15

96. As a result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class

16 have suffered and continue to suffer injury. Declaratory and injunctive relief are therefore

17 warranted.

18

COUNT THREE

19

FAILURE TO FOLLOW NOTICE-AND-COMMENT REQUIREMENTS OF THE

20

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT

21

[By the Named Plaintiffs on Behalf of the Proposed Class Against All Defendants]

22

97. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 96 above are repeated and

23 incorporated as though fully set forth herein.

24

98. By regulation, CIS is required to conduct a criminal background check before a

25 naturalization application can be granted. 8 C.F.R. § 335.2(b). Prior to about November 2002,

26 CIS used criminal databases such as NCIC to complete this process.

27

99. In or about November 2002, CIS added a new requirement, the FBI name check,

28 that goes beyond the criminal background check required by statute and regulation. Unlike the
21
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION PURSUANT TO 8 U.S.C. § 1447(B)

1 databases searched during the criminal background checks, the FBI name check database

2 contains names of persons who have never been convicted of, arrested for, or even suspected of a

3 crime – including innocent witnesses and even crime victims. This added requirement of a

4 name check constitutes a substantive rule that departed from prior policy and practice.

5

100. Defendants implemented the FBI name check requirement for naturalization

6 without giving notice and providing a period for public comment, even though the name check

7 requirement constitutes a substantive rule that departed from prior policy and practice.

8

101. Defendants’ failure to provide a notice-and-comment period prior to

9 implementing the FBI name check requirement violates the Administrative Procedures Act, 5

10 U.S.C. § 553.

11

COUNT FOUR

12

VIOLATION OF FIFTH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS CLAUSE

13

[By the Named Plaintiffs on Behalf of the Proposed Class Against All Defendants]

14

102. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 101 above are repeated and

15 incorporated as though fully set forth herein.

16

103. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the government from

17 depriving any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

18

104. Defendants Still, Emilio Gonzalez and Chertoff have a pattern, practice or policy

19 of failing to adjudicate the applications for naturalization of the proposed plaintiff class within

20 120 days of the date of naturalization examinations because of delays in “name checks,” in

21 violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1446(d) and 8 C.F.R. § 335. Defendants Alberto Gonzales and Mueller

22 have a pattern, practice or policy of failing to timely complete “name checks,” with the full

23 knowledge that CIS requires the completion of such “name checks” for adjudication of

24 applications for naturalization of the proposed plaintiff class. Defendants have a pattern, practice

25 or policy of failing to set deadlines for completing “name checks” and to take all the other

26 reasonable steps necessary to complete the adjudication of applications for naturalization of the

27 proposed plaintiff class, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1446(d) and 8 C.F.R. § 335. These actions by

28 Defendants violate Plaintiffs’ rights to due process of law.
22
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION PURSUANT TO 8 U.S.C. § 1447(B)

1

105. As a result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class

2 have suffered and continue to suffer injury. Declaratory and injunctive relief are therefore

3 warranted.

4

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

5

WHEREFORE, in view of the arguments and authority noted herein, Petitioner prays for

6 the following relief:

7

a.

Assume jurisdiction over the matter;

8

b.

Certify this case as a class action lawsuit, as proposed herein;

9

c.

Review de novo and grant the named Plaintiffs’ applications for

10

naturalization, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b);

11

d.

Order Defendants to promptly adjudicate, in a time period not to exceed

12

90 days, the currently pending applications for naturalization of all

13

members of the proposed class;

14

e.

Order Defendants to adjudicate, within 120 days of the date of the

15

naturalization examination, all applications for naturalization that shall be

16

submitted in the future by members of the proposed class , as required by

17

governing law;

18

f.

Order that any name checks Defendants choose to conduct shall be

19

completed in a manner that does not delay adjudication of naturalization

20

applications by members of the proposed class beyond 120 days of the

21

applicant’s naturalization examination;

22

g.

Order Defendants to adopt a procedure for identifying naturalization cases

23

awaiting final adjudication based solely on FBI name checks, and for

24

identifying naturalization cases awaiting final adjudication for more than

25

120 days after successful completion of naturalization examinations;

26

h.

Issue a declaratory judgment holding unlawful: (a) the failure of

27

Defendants Still, Emilio Gonzalez and Chertoff to adjudicate applications

28

for naturalization within 120 days of the date of the naturalization

23
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION PURSUANT TO 8 U.S.C. § 1447(B)

1

examination; (b) The failure of Defendants Alberto Gonzales and Mueller

2

to complete “name checks” within a reasonable time; and (c) Defendants’

3

failures to take all necessary steps to adjudicate applications for

4

naturalization within 120 days of the date of the naturalization

5

examinations.

6

i.

Award reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to the Equal Access to

7

Justice Act, 5 U.S.C. § 504, 28 U.S.C. § 2412; and

8

j.

Grant any and all further relief this Court deems just and proper.

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
24
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION PURSUANT TO 8 U.S.C. § 1447(B)

1 Dated: February 8, 2007

Respectfully submitted,

2

CECILLIA D. WANG

LUCAS GUTTENTAG

3

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

FOUNDATION

4

IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT

39 Drumm Street

5

San Francisco, CA 94111

6

JULIA HARUMI MASS

ALAN L. SCHLOSSER

7

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN

8

CALIFORNIA

39 Drumm Street

9

San Francisco, CA 94111

10

SIN YEN LING

JOREN LYONS

11

ASIAN LAW CAUCUS

939 Market Street, Suite 201

12

San Francisco, CA 94103

Telephone: (415) 896-1701

13

Facsimile: (415) 896-1702

14

TODD GALLINGER

Of Counsel

15

COUNCIL ON AMERICAN-ISLAMIC

RELATIONS (CAIR) – SAN

16

FRANCISCO BAY AREA

3000 Scott Boulevard, Suite 212

17

Santa Clara, CA 95054

Telephone: (408) 986-9874

18

Facsimile: (408) 986-9875

19

By: _________________________________

20

CECILLIA D. WANG

21

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
25
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION PURSUANT TO 8 U.S.C. § 1447(B)

 
 Case 4:07-cv-00503-SBA Document 28 Filed 05/07/2007 Page 1 of 15

1 CECILLIA D. WANG (CA Bar No. 187782) LUCAS GUTTENTAG (CA Bar No. 90208)
2 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
3 IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT 39 Drumm Street
4 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 343-0775
5 Facsimile: (415) 395-0950 Email: CWang@aclu.org
6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
7 *Additional counsel listed on following page

8

9

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12

OAKLAND DIVISION

13

YINAN ZHANG, ALIA AHMEDI, ZHONG

14 FU, ABDUL GHAFOOR, MIAO LING

HUANG, SANA JALILI, YAN WANG, YAN

15 YIN,

Case No. 07-CV-0503-SBA

16

Plaintiffs-Petitioners,

17

v.

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT

STATEMENT AND PROPOSED ORDER

18 DAVID STILL, District Director, U.S.

Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of

19 Citizenship and Immigration Services, San

Date:

May 17, 2007

Francisco District; EMILIO T. GONZALEZ, Time:

2:45 p.m.

20 Director, U.S. Department of Homeland

Courtroom: By telephone conference

Security, Bureau of Citizenship and

Judge:

Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong

21 Immigration Services; MICHAEL

CHERTOFF, U.S. Secretary of Homeland

22 Security; ROBERT S. MUELLER III, Director

of the Federal Bureau of Investigation;

23 ALBERTO GONZALES, Attorney General of

the United States,

24

Defendants-Respondents.

25

26

27

28

1
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND PROPOSED ORDER

Case 4:07-cv-00503-SBA Document 28 Filed 05/07/2007 Page 2 of 15
1 Additional Plaintiffs’ counsel:
2 JULIA HARUMI MASS (CA Bar No. 189649) ALAN L. SCHLOSSER (CA Bar No. 49957)
3 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
4 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111
5 Telephone: (415) 621-2493 Facsimile: (415) 255-8437
6 SIN YEN LING
7 JOREN LYONS (CA Bar No. 203403) ASIAN LAW CAUCUS
8 939 Market Street, Suite 201 San Francisco, CA 94103
9 Telephone: (415) 896-1701 Facsimile: (415) 896-1702
10 TODD GALLINGER (CA Bar No. 238666), Of Counsel
11 COUNCIL ON AMERICAN-ISLAMIC RELATIONS (CAIR) – SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA
12 3000 Scott Boulevard, Suite 212 Santa Clara, CA 95054
13 Telephone: (408) 986-9874 Facsimile: (408) 986-9875
14
15 Counsel for Defendants:
16 SCOTT N. SCHOOLS (SC Bar No. 9990) United States Attorney
17 JOANN W. SWANSON (CA Bar No. 88143) Chief, Civil Division
18 EDWARD A. OLSEN (CA Bar No. 214150) Assistant United States Attorney
19 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055 San Francisco, CA 94102
20 Telephone: (415) 436-6915 Facsimile: (415) 436-6927
21 PETER D. KEISLER
22 United States Department of Justice Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division
23 DAVID KLINE Principal Deputy Director, Office of Immigration Litigation
24 ELIZABETH J. STEVENS Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation
25 JEFFREY S. ROBINS Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation
26 P.O. Box 878, Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044
27 Telephone: (202) 616-1246 Facsimile: (202) 233-0397
28
2
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND PROPOSED ORDER

Case 4:07-cv-00503-SBA Document 28 Filed 05/07/2007 Page 3 of 15

1

The parties to the above-captioned action submit this Joint Case Management

2 Statement pursuant to the Court’s Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference and

3 ADR Deadlines dated January 24, 2007; the Court’s Case Management Scheduling Order

4 for Reassigned Civil Cases dated February 28, 2007; and the Stipulation To Modify the

5 Court’s Case Management Scheduling Order approved by the Court on April 30, 2007.

6

a. Jurisdiction and service

7

Plaintiffs contend that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter

8 pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) (district court jurisdiction to adjudicate delayed

9 naturalization applications), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201

10 and 2202 (declaratory relief). Defendants contend that the Court does not have

11 jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ individual claims under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) because the 120-

12 day jurisdictional periods have not run, and that the remaining claims fail to state claims

13 upon which relief may be granted as a matter of law.

14

The parties agree that venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

15 1391(e).

16

Counsel for both plaintiffs and defendants have agreed that service of the First

17 Amended Complaint was completed on February 27, 2007 at the latest.

18

b. Claims and defenses

19

The parties have prepared their respective statements setting forth claims and

20 defenses, set forth below.

21

1. Plaintiffs’ claims

22

Plaintiffs are all long-time green card holders who have made this Nation their

23 permanent home and seek to pledge their allegiance to the United States as citizens. Each

24 Plaintiff meets all statutory requirements for naturalization, but has been awaiting

25 adjudication for more than 120 days since passing all criminal record checks and the

26 naturalization interview. Defendants are responsible for the prolonged delay in

27 processing Plaintiffs’ naturalization applications, because of their policy, pattern and

28 practice of requiring “FBI name checks,” failing to set reasonable time limits for the

3
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND PROPOSED ORDER

Case 4:07-cv-00503-SBA Document 28 Filed 05/07/2007 Page 4 of 15

1 processing of those name checks, and failing to adjudicate naturalization applications in a

2 reasonably timely manner. Defendants’ conduct violates immigration regulations, 8

3 C.F.R. § 335, and is contrary to Congress’s expressed intent that applications for

4 immigration benefits should be adjudicated within 180 days, 8 U.S.C. § 1571. As a result

5 of these extraordinary delays – which have in fact exceeded two years for each of the

6 named Plaintiffs – they are unable to participate fully in U.S. civic society and also are

7 unable to engage in certain contractual relationships with the U.S. government, to travel

8 abroad pursuant to the Visa Waiver Program, to petition for visas for their spouses,

9 children and parents, and to enjoy other privileges and rights of U.S. citizenship.

10

Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants’ policies and practices of long-term

11 naturalization delays are unlawful under the Administrative Procedures Act and the Due

12 Process Clause and bring this action against officials of the U.S. Department of

13 Homeland Security; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“CIS”), the sub-unit of

14 the Department of Homeland Security responsible for naturalization; the Federal Bureau

15 of Investigation (“FBI”), which is responsible for the “name checks” that are causing the

16 naturalization delays, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who has ultimate

17 responsibility for the FBI.

18

Plaintiffs individually seek naturalization by the Court pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §

19 1447(b), which provides that a district court may adjudicate an application for

20 naturalization if the immigration agency has failed to act within 120 days of the

21 preliminary examination on an naturalization application. Plaintiffs represent a putative

22 class of other lawful permanent residents who are similarly situated and similarly affected

23 by systemic delays in the naturalization process. On behalf of the class, Plaintiffs seek

24 injunctive and declaratory relief from the Defendants’ policies and practices causing

25 prolonged delays in naturalization. Plaintiffs bring their causes of action for declaratory

26 and injunctive relief under the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 555 and 706

27 (for unreasonable delays); 5 U.S.C. § 553 (for failure to provide notice and opportunity

28 for public comment prior to promulgating the “FBI name check”); and the Due Process

4
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND PROPOSED ORDER

Case 4:07-cv-00503-SBA Document 28 Filed 05/07/2007 Page 5 of 15

1 Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

2

2. Defendants’ claims and defenses

3

Defendants have moved to dismiss the FAC under Federal Rules of Civil

4 Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Defendants contend that the Court lacks subject matter

5 jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ individual claims for naturalization under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b)

6 because the 120-day jurisdictional period has not run. Defendants argue, in the

7 alternative, that Plaintiffs’ individual claims should be remanded to CIS for adjudication,

8 and that, should the Court not remand the individual claims, the claims are misjoined and

9 should be severed.

10

Defendants also contend that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for relief under

11 the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) on the grounds that there is an adequate

12 remedy at law provided by Congress, that APA review is not available because there is

13 no “final agency action” at issue, that the APA does not permit judicial review because

14 Defendants are not legally required to act, and that, in the alternative, Defendants’

15 procedures are not unreasonable, given limited agency resources and the fact that

16 approximately 90% of all naturalization applications are adjudicated within six months of

17 the filing date of the application, and that approximately 90% of all requests by USCIS to

18 the FBI for name checks are completed within two months.

19

Defendants contend that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under the APA for

20 failure to comply with notice-and-comment requirements because the name check

21 process is an interpretive rule that is not subject to those requirements.

22

Defendants contend that the Court should dismiss the claim for injunctive relief

23 because Plaintiffs have shown neither irreparable injury nor inadequate remedies at law.

24

Finally, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs’ claim under the Due Process Clause

25 should be dismissed because they do not have a protected liberty or property interest.

26

c. Summary of proceedings to date

27

On January 24, 2007, lead Plaintiff Yinan Zhang filed an individual Petition for

28 Hearing on Naturalization Application Under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). On February 28, 2007,

5
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND PROPOSED ORDER

Case 4:07-cv-00503-SBA Document 28 Filed 05/07/2007 Page 6 of 15

1 Plaintiff Zhang and the other named Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint for

2 Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Petition for Naturalization Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §

3 1447(b). The First Amended Complaint was filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

4 15(a), which permits amendment of a pleading “once as a matter of course at any time

5 before a responsive pleading is served.”

6

On April 30, 2007, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, which is set for

7 hearing on July 31, 2007.

8

Initial disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a) will be exchanged on May 7, 2007, as

9 stipulated by the parties and as ordered by this Court.

10

d. Pending motions

11

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is pending. Because the motion to dismiss relies

12 on factual assertions supported by exhibits, including a declaration filed by Michael

13 Cannon, the director of the FBI unit responsible for name checks, Plaintiffs will argue

14 that (1) the court must disregard any factual assertions outside the facts alleged in the

15 FAC, or (2) the motion to dismiss should be construed as a motion for summary

16 judgment and the hearing should be continued in order to allow Plaintiffs to conduct

17 discovery necessary to respond to the factual assertions in Defendants’ motion, pursuant

18 to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f). The parties respectfully request guidance from

19 the Court on the hearing date and briefing schedule for Defendants’ pending motion, and

20 on the parties’ obligations to engage in discovery prior to the Court’s ruling on

21 Defendants’ pending motion.

22

e. Major motions anticipated before trial

23

In addition to the motion to dismiss already filed by the Defendants, the parties

24 anticipate other major motions before trial. Plaintiffs intend to file a motion for class

25 certification set for hearing no later than the time of the hearing on Defendants’ motion to

26 dismiss. In addition, the parties anticipate that they will file motions for summary

27 judgment.

28

Defendants intend to request at the Case Management Conference that the Court

6
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND PROPOSED ORDER

Case 4:07-cv-00503-SBA Document 28 Filed 05/07/2007 Page 7 of 15

1 stay discovery during the pendency of the motion to dismiss and/or the final decision of

2 plaintiffs on the parameters of their complaint. Plaintiffs intend to oppose the request for

3 a stay of discovery on the ground that Defendants’ motion to dismiss gives rise to factual

4 disputes and therefore should be deemed a motion for summary judgment. For that

5 reason, the briefing schedule and hearing on Defendants’ motion should be continued to

6 allow Plaintiffs to obtain discovery pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f)

7 prior to being required to respond to the motion.

8

Plaintiffs also anticipate filing a motion for leave to file a second amended

9 complaint. Plaintiffs have advised Defendants and now advise the Court that a conflict of

10 interest has arisen between Plaintiff Yinan Zhang and the other named Plaintiffs. For that

11 reason, Plaintiffs anticipate that either Mr. Zhang or the other Plaintiffs as a group will

12 move to dismiss their claims voluntarily under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1),

13 and that the other Plaintiff(s) will then move for leave to file a second amended

14 complaint that will omit the claims and allegations relevant only to the dismissed party.

15 Plaintiffs intend, in any event, to move for leave to file a second amended complaint to

16 make minor corrections to the allegations.

17

f. Additional parties

18

As set forth above, Plaintiffs anticipate that either Plaintiff Yinan Zhang or the

19 other Plaintiffs as a group will be dismissed voluntarily from this action, and will re-file a

20 separate action.

21

g. Anticipated hearings

22

The parties anticipate that there will be a need for a hearing on Defendants’

23 motion to dismiss, any motion for a protective order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c),

24 Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, and any motions for summary judgment to be

25 filed.

26

h. Evidence preservation

27

The parties have complied with the Court’s direction to take affirmative steps to

28 preserve evidence related to this action including, without limitation, interdiction of

7
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND PROPOSED ORDER

Case 4:07-cv-00503-SBA Document 28 Filed 05/07/2007 Page 8 of 15

1 document destruction programs and any ongoing erasures of emails, voice mails, and

2 other electronically recorded material.

3

i. Stipulated discovery limits

4

The parties have not stipulated to any discovery limits different from those set

5 forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

6

Defendants believe that a protective order is necessary in order to conduct

7 discovery in compliance with Privacy Act obligations and to protect law enforcement

8 interests. The parties intend to propose the necessary protective orders by stipulation if

9 possible.

10

j. Proposed deadlines and court dates

11

The parties propose the following schedule:

12 Last day for Plaintiffs to file motion

for class certification 13 Last day for Plaintiffs to file

opposition to Defendants’ motion to 14 dismiss1; last day for Defendants to

15 file opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification

16 Last day to file reply memoranda re

motion to dismiss and motion for class

17 certification

Hearing on Defendants’ motion to 18 dismiss and Plaintiffs’ motion for

19

class certification Non-expert discovery cut-off2

20 Deadline for expert witness disclosures

21 Expert discovery cut-off

Last day to file motions for summary 22 judgment

23 Last day to file oppositions to motions

June 26, 2007 July 10, 2007
July 17, 2007
July 31, 2007
November 1, 2007 December 1, 2007 January 15, 2007 February 26, 2007 March 11, 2007

24 1 As set forth above in paragraphs (d) and (e), Plaintiffs believe that Defendants’ motion to dismiss should be deemed a motion for summary judgment because it puts facts in dispute.
25 Plaintiffs therefore are entitled to discovery prior to the filing of a response to the motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f), and request that the current hearing date be
26 vacated so that Plaintiffs may have an opportunity for discovery prior to filing a response to the motion.
27 2 The parties agree to this discovery cut-off date assuming that discovery commences immediately and is not stayed. In the event that discovery is stayed, the parties believe that a
28 later discovery cut-off date would be appropriate.

8
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND PROPOSED ORDER

Case 4:07-cv-00503-SBA Document 28 Filed 05/07/2007 Page 9 of 15

1 for summary judgment

Last day to file reply memoranda re 2 motions for summary judgment

3

Hearing on motions for summary judgment

4 Last day to file trial briefs Trial date

5

March 18, 2007
April 1, 2007
April 14, 2007 May 12, 2007

6

k. Jury demand

7

There is no jury demand in this case.

8

l. Relief sought

9

Each of the named Plaintiffs seeks naturalization by the Court pursuant to 8

10 U.S.C. § 1447(b). The named Plaintiffs also request that the Court certify a class and

11 grant declaratory and injunctive relief from Defendants’ violations of the APA and Due

12 Process Clause as follows:

13

(1) Order Defendants to promptly adjudicate, in a time period not to exceed 90 days,

14

the currently pending applications for naturalization of all members of the

15

proposed class;

16

(2) Order Defendants to adjudicate, within 120 days of the date of the naturalization

17

examination, all applications for naturalization that shall be submitted in the

18

future by members of the proposed class, as required by governing law;

19

(3) Order that any name checks Defendants choose to conduct shall be completed in a

20

manner that does not delay adjudication of naturalization applications by

21

members of the proposed class beyond 120 days of the applicant’s naturalization

22

examination;

23

(4) Order Defendants to adopt a procedure for identifying naturalization cases

24

awaiting final adjudication based solely on FBI name checks, and for identifying

25

naturalization cases awaiting final adjudication for more than 120 days after

26

successful completion of naturalization examinations;

27

(5) Issue a declaratory judgment holding unlawful: (a) the failure of Defendants Still,

28

Emilio Gonzalez and Chertoff to adjudicate applications for naturalization within

9
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND PROPOSED ORDER

Case 4:07-cv-00503-SBA Document 28 Filed 05/07/2007 Page 10 of 15

1

120 days of the date of the naturalization examination; (b) The failure of

2

Defendants Alberto Gonzales and Mueller to complete “name checks” within a

3

reasonable time; and (c) Defendants’ failures to take all necessary steps to

4

adjudicate applications for naturalization within 120 days of the date of the

5

naturalization examinations.

6

(6) Award reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice

7

Act, 5 U.S.C. § 504, 28 U.S.C. § 2412; and

8

(7) Any and all further relief the Court deems just and proper.

9

m. Alternative Dispute Resolution

10

The parties have been conferring jointly and separately with the Court’s ADR

11 program director, Mr. Howard Herman, and are considering ADR options.

12

n. Assignment to magistrate judge

13

This matter was originally assigned to Magistrate Judge James Larson.

14 Defendants filed an objection to the assignment to a magistrate judge and the case was

15 randomly assigned to this Court.

16

o. Service list for all counsel

17

Following is a service list and contact information for all counsel:

18 Plaintiffs’ counsel:

19 Cecillia D. Wang (cwang@aclu.org) Lucas Guttentag (lguttentag@aclu.org)
20 ACLU Foundation Immigrants’ Rights Project 39 Drumm Street
21 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 343-0775
22 Facsimile: (415) 395-0950

23 Julia Harumi Mass (jmass@aclunc.org) Alan L. Schlosser (aschlosser@aclunc.org)
24 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111
25 Telephone: (415) 621-2493 Facsimile: (415) 255-8437
26 Sin Yen Ling (sinyenl@asianlawcaucus.org)
27 Joren Lyons (joren@asianlawcaucus.org) 939 Market Street, Suite 201
28 San Francisco, CA 94103

10
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND PROPOSED ORDER

Case 4:07-cv-00503-SBA Document 28 Filed 05/07/2007 Page 11 of 15
1 Telephone: (415) 896-1701 Facsimile: (415) 896-1702
2 Todd Gallinger (tgallinger@gillgallinger.com)
3 c/o Coalition on American-Islamic Relations of the San Francisco Bay Area 3000 Scott Boulevard, Suite 212
4 Santa Clara, CA 95054 Telephone: (408) 986-9874
5 Facsimile: (408) 986-9875
6 Defendants’ counsel:
7 Scott N. Schools
8 Joann M. Swanson Edward A. Olsen (Edward.Olsen@usdoj.gov)
9 United States Attorney’s Office 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055
10 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 436-6915
11 Facsimile: (415) 436-6927
12 Peter D. Keisler David Kline
13 Elizabeth J. Stevens (Elizabeth.Stevens@usdoj.gov) Jeffrey S. Robins (Jeffrey.Robins@usdoj.gov)
14 U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 878, Ben Franklin Station
15 Washington, D.C. 20044 Telephone: (202) 616-1246
16 Facsimile: (202) 233-0397
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND PROPOSED ORDER

Case 4:07-cv-00503-SBA Document 28 Filed 05/07/2007 Page 12 of 15

1 Dated: May 7, 2007 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Respectfully submitted,
CECILLIA D. WANG LUCAS GUTTENTAG AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111
JULIA HARUMI MASS ALAN L. SCHLOSSER AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111
SIN YEN LING JOREN LYONS ASIAN LAW CAUCUS 939 Market Street, Suite 201 San Francisco, CA 94103
TODD GALLINGER Of Counsel COUNCIL ON AMERICAN-ISLAMIC RELATIONS (CAIR) – SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA 3000 Scott Boulevard, Suite 212 Santa Clara, CA 95054
By: _______/s/_________________________ CECILLIA D. WANG
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

12
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND PROPOSED ORDER

Case 4:07-cv-00503-SBA Document 28 Filed 05/07/2007 Page 13 of 15

1 Dated: May 7, 2007 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

SCOTT N. SCHOOLS United States Attorney JOANN W. SWANSON Chief, Civil Division EDWARD A. OLSEN Assistant United States Attorney 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055 San Francisco, CA 94102
PETER D. KEISLER United States Department of Justice Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division DAVID KLINE Principal Deputy Director, Office of Immigration Litigation ELIZABETH J. STEVENS Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation JEFFREY S. ROBINS Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation P.O. Box 878, Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044
By: _______/s/_________________________ ELIZABETH J. STEVENS
Attorneys for Defendants

13
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND PROPOSED ORDER

Case 4:07-cv-00503-SBA Document 28 Filed 05/07/2007 Page 14 of 15

1

ORDER

2

The Joint Case Management Statement is hereby adopted by the Court as a Case

3 Management Order for this matter. The parties are ordered to comply with this Order.

4

SO ORDERED.

5 Dated: May ____, 2007 6 7 8

_______________________________________ HON. SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

14
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND PROPOSED ORDER

Case 4:07-cv-00503-SBA Document 28 Filed 05/07/2007 Page 15 of 15

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Cecillia D. Wang, declare as follows: I hereby certify that today I electronically filed the foregoing JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND PROPOSED ORDER with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following email addresses:

Julia Harumi Mass American Civil Liberties Union
Foundation of Northern California
Alan L. Schlosser American Civil Liberties Union
Foundation of Northern California
Lucas Guttentag American Civil Liberties Union
Immigrants’ Rights Project
Joren Lyons Asian Law Caucus
Edward A. Olsen United States Attorney’s Office
Elizabeth J. Stevens United States Department of Justice
Jeffrey S. Robins United States Department of Justice

Via ECF at jmass@aclunc.org
Via ECF at aschlosser@aclunc.org
Via ECF at lguttentag@aclu.org
Via ECF at joren@asianlawcaucus.org
Via ECF at edward.olsen@usdoj.gov
Via ECF at elizabeth.stevens@usdoj.gov
Via ECF at jeffrey.robins@usdoj.gov

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the

above is true and correct.

Dated: May 7, 2007 San Francisco, California

________/s/_________________ CECILLIA D. WANG

 
 Case 4:07-cv-00503-SBA Document 41 Filed 09/05/2007 Page 1 of 2

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

2

OAKLAND DIVISION

3 YINAN ZHANG, ALIA AHMADI,
4 ZHONG FU, ABDUL GHAFOOR, MIAO LING HUANG, SANA JALILI,
5 YAN WANG, YAN YIN,

No. C 07-0503 SBA ORDER

6

Plaintiffs-Petitioners,

7

v.

8 DAVID STILL, District Director, U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
9 Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, San Francisco District; EMILIO
10 T. GONZALEZ, Director, U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
11 Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services; MICHAEL CHERTOFF, U.S.
12 Secretary of Homeland Security; ROBERT S. MUELLER III, Director of
13 the Federal Bureau of Investigation; ALBERTO GONZALES, Attorney
14 General of the United States,

15

Defendants-Respondents.

16

17

On July 31, 2007, the Court held a hearing on its order that plaintiff Yinan Zhang show

18 cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff 1) failed to appear at the

19 hearing as ordered by the Court; 2) failed to file file a Certificate of Counsel as ordered by the Court;

20 3) has failed to register for Electronic Case Filing, as required by the is Court; and 4) failed to file an

21 opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that plaintiff's

22 case is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1).

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

25 Date: 9/4/07

_________________________________

26

Saundra Brown Armstrong

27

United States District Judge

28

Case 4:07-cv-00503-SBA Document 41 Filed 09/05/2007 Page 2 of 2

1

2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

FOR THE

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

6

7 ZHANG et al,

Case Number: CV07-00503 SBA

8

Plaintiff,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

9 v.

10 GONZALEZ et al,

11

Defendant.

/

12

13 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California.
14 That on September 5, 2007, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said
15 copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located
16 in the Clerk's office.

17

18 Alexandre Nicholas Lebecki
19 Law Office of Alexandre Lebecki 11693 San Vicente Blvd #417
20 Los Angeles, CA 90049

21 Dated: September 5, 2007
22
23

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk

24

25

26

27

28

2

 
 Zhang v. Still, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)

2007 WL 2126495 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, N.D. California, Oakland Division.
Yinan ZHANG, Alia Ahmadi, Zhong Fu, Abdul Ghafoor, Miao Ling Huang, Sana Jalili, Yan Wang,
Yan Yin, Plaintiffs-Petitioners, v.
David STILL, District Director, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services, San Francisco District; Emilio T. Gonzalez, Director, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services; Michael Chertoff, U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security; Robert S. Mueller III, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General of the United
States, Defendants-Respondents.
No. C 07-0503 SBA. | July 23, 2007.
Opinion
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG, United States District Judge.
*1 On January, 24, 2007, Plaintiff Yinan Zhang commenced this action by filing a Petition for Hearing on Naturalization Application under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). Docket Report No. 1. On February 8, 2007 Alia Ahmadi, Zhong Fu, Abdul Ghafoor, Miao Ling Huang, Sana Jalili, Yan Wang, and Yan Yin joined the action filed by Zhang, and all plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Petition for Naturalization Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). Docket No. 4. On April 30, 2007 Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, which is scheduled for hearing on July 31, 2007. Docket No. 27.
On June 12, 2007 Ahmadi, Fu, Ghafoor, Huang, Jalili, Want, and Yin filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), stating that Zhang had elected not to continue as a putative class representative and has retained new counsel to represent him individually. Docket Report No. 32. On June 26, 2007 this Court dismissed the claims of Alia Ahmadi, Zhong Fu, Abdul Ghafoor, Miao Ling Huang,

Sana Jalili, Yan Want, and Yan Yin without prejudice. Docket No. 34. On July 2, 2007 the remaining plaintiffs filed a new action: Ahmadi v. Chertoff, 07-3455-WHA.
Zhang has not filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss, currently scheduled for hearing on July 31, 2007. Neither Zhang nor his new counsel, Alexandre Lebecki, have returned calls from Zhang’s former counsel regarding permission to forward information, or a stipulation to dismiss the remaining plaintiffs. Sin Yen Ling Decl. ¶ 6. Additionally, this Court’s Courtroom Deputy has made several attempts to contact Lebecki by phone, however, Lebecki has not responded to the calls.
Given that this Court’s Standing Order states that “the failure of the opposing party to file a memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to any motion shall constitute a consent to the granting of the motion,” the Court may summarily grant the motion. However, in the interest of providing Zhang with one last chance to prevent his case from being dismissed, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the hearing on the motion to dismiss scheduled for July 31, 2007 is VACATED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:
(1) Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s counsel of record shall appear in Courtroom 3 of the United States Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California, on July 31, 2007, at 1:00 P.M., to show cause why the above-captioned case should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
(2) At least five days prior to the above hearing, Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s counsel of record must file a Certificate of Counsel with the Clerk of the Court, to explain why the case should or should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The Certificate shall set forth the nature of the case, its present status, the reason it has not been brought to trial or otherwise terminated, any basis for opposition to dismissal by any party, and its expected course if not dismissed.
*2 (3) Please take notice that this Order requires both the specified court appearance and the filing of the Certificate of Counsel. Failure to fully comply with this order will be deemed sufficient grounds to dismiss the action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
	  

1

Zhang v. Still, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007) 2

 
 CAND-ECF - Docket Report

Page 1 of 13

ADRMOP, CLOSED, E-Filing, ProSe
U.S. District Court California Northern District (Oakland) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:07-cv-00503-SBA

Zhang v. Gonzalez et al Assigned to: Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong Cause: 8:1446 Petition for Naturalization Hearing

Date Filed: 01/24/2007 Date Terminated: 09/05/2007 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 890 Other Statutory Actions Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Petitioner Yinan Zhang

represented by Alexandre Nicholas Lebecki Law Office of Alexandre Lebecki 11693 San Vicente Blvd #417 Los Angeles, CA 90049 310-550-5880 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Joren Lyons Asian Law Caucus 939 Market Street Suite 201 San Francisco, CA 94103 415-896-1701 ext. 122 Fax: 415-896-1702 Email: joren@asianlawcaucus.org TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sandeep Solanki O'Melveny & Myers LLP 275 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111 415-984-8984 Email: ssolanki@omm.com TERMINATED: 02/23/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Scott T. Nonaka O'Melveny & Myers LLP Embarcadero Center West 275 Battery Street, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?339961884849019-L_353_0-1

9/11/2007

CAND-ECF - Docket Report
Petitioner Alia Ahmedi TERMINATED: 06/27/2007

Page 2 of 13
(415) 984-8905 Fax: (415) 984-8701 Email: snonaka@omm.com TERMINATED: 02/23/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cecillia Derphine Wang American Civil Liberties Union Foundation Immigrants Rights Project 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111 415-343-0775 Fax: 415-395-0950 Email: cwang@aclu.org TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alia Ahmedi PRO SE
Alan Lawrence Schlosser ACLU Foundation of Northern California, Inc. 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111 415-621-2493 Fax: 415-255-8437 Email: aschlosser@aclunc.org TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cecillia Derphine Wang (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia Harumi Mass, Esq. American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, Inc. 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111 415/621-2493 Fax: 415/255-8437 Email: jmass@aclunc.org TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?339961884849019-L_353_0-1

9/11/2007

CAND-ECF - Docket Report
Petitioner Zhong Fu TERMINATED: 06/27/2007

Page 3 of 13
Lucas Guttentag American Civil Liberties Union Immigrants' Rights Project 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 343-0773 Fax: (415) 395-0950 Email: lguttentag@aclu.org TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sin Yen Ling Asian Law Caucus 939 Market Street Suite 201 San Francisco, CA 94103 415-896-1701 Fax: 415-896-1702 TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Todd Gallinger Council on American-Islamic Relations (Cair) San Francisco Bay Area 3000 Scott Boulevard Suite 212 Santa Clara, CA 95054 408-986-9874 Fax: 408-986-9875 TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Zhong Fu PRO SE
Alan Lawrence Schlosser (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cecillia Derphine Wang (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia Harumi Mass, Esq. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?339961884849019-L_353_0-1

9/11/2007

CAND-ECF - Docket Report
Petitioner Abdul Ghafoor TERMINATED: 06/27/2007

Page 4 of 13
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lucas Guttentag (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sin Yen Ling (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Todd Gallinger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abdul Ghafoor PRO SE
Alan Lawrence Schlosser (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cecillia Derphine Wang (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia Harumi Mass, Esq. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lucas Guttentag (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sin Yen Ling (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Todd Gallinger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?339961884849019-L_353_0-1

9/11/2007

CAND-ECF - Docket Report Petitioner Miao Ling Huang TERMINATED: 06/27/2007
Petitioner Sana Jalili TERMINATED: 06/27/2007

Page 5 of 13
represented by Miao Ling Huang PRO SE
Alan Lawrence Schlosser (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cecillia Derphine Wang (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia Harumi Mass, Esq. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lucas Guttentag (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sin Yen Ling (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Todd Gallinger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Sana Jalili PRO SE
Alan Lawrence Schlosser (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cecillia Derphine Wang (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia Harumi Mass, Esq.

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?339961884849019-L_353_0-1

9/11/2007

CAND-ECF - Docket Report
Petitioner Yan Wang TERMINATED: 06/27/2007

Page 6 of 13
(See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lucas Guttentag (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sin Yen Ling (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Todd Gallinger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Yan Wang PRO SE
Alan Lawrence Schlosser (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cecillia Derphine Wang (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia Harumi Mass, Esq. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lucas Guttentag (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sin Yen Ling (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Todd Gallinger (See above for address)

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?339961884849019-L_353_0-1

9/11/2007

CAND-ECF - Docket Report Petitioner Yan Yin TERMINATED: 06/27/2007
V. Respondent Alberto R. Gonzalez U.S. Attorney General

Page 7 of 13
TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Yan Yin PRO SE
Alan Lawrence Schlosser (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cecillia Derphine Wang (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia Harumi Mass, Esq. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lucas Guttentag (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sin Yen Ling (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Todd Gallinger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/27/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edward A. Olsen United States Attorney's Office 450 Golden Gate Avenue P.O. Box 36055 San Francisco, CA 94102 415-436-6915 Fax: 415-436-6927 Email: edward.olsen@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?339961884849019-L_353_0-1

9/11/2007

CAND-ECF - Docket Report

Page 8 of 13

Respondent Michael Chertoff Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Respondent Emilio T. Gonzalez Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Elizabeth J. Stevens U.S. Dept. of Justice P.O. Box 878, Ben Franklin Station 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington, DC 20044 202-616-9752 Fax: 202-307-0592 Email: Elizabeth.Stevens@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey S. Robins U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division P.O. Box 878, Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202-616-1246 Fax: 202-233-0397 Email: jeffrey.robins@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edward A. Olsen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth J. Stevens (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey S. Robins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edward A. Olsen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth J. Stevens (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey S. Robins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?339961884849019-L_353_0-1

9/11/2007

CAND-ECF - Docket Report

Page 9 of 13

Respondent Robert S. Mueller Director of the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation
Respondent David N. Still San Francisco District Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Miscellaneous Alia Ahmadi Filing party is a former plaintiff

represented by Edward A. Olsen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth J. Stevens (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey S. Robins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edward A. Olsen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth J. Stevens (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey S. Robins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Cecillia Derphine Wang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 01/24/2007
01/24/2007 01/24/2007

#

Docket Text

1 PETITION /issued summons against David N. Still, Alberto R. Gonzalez, Michael Chertoff, Emilio T. Gonzalez, Robert S. Mueller (Filing fee $350 receipt number 3461100209). Filed byYinan Zhang. (ga, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/24/2007) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/28/2007 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/25/2007)

2 ADR SCHEDULING ORDER: Case Management Statement due by 4/25/2007. Case Management Conference set for 5/2/2007 10:30 AM.. Signed by Judge James Larson on 1/24/07. (ga, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/24/2007) (Entered: 01/25/2007)

CASE DESIGNATED for Electronic Filing. (ga, COURT STAFF) (Filed on

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?339961884849019-L_353_0-1

9/11/2007

CAND-ECF - Docket Report

Page 10 of 13

02/06/2007 02/08/2007 02/08/2007 02/20/2007
02/21/2007 02/21/2007 02/21/2007 02/21/2007 02/21/2007 02/21/2007 02/23/2007 02/23/2007 02/23/2007 02/26/2007

1/24/2007) (Entered: 01/25/2007)
3 Proposed MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Notice and [Proposed] Order filed by Yinan Zhang. (Solanki, Sandeep) (Filed on 2/6/2007) (Entered: 02/06/2007)
4 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Alberto R. Gonzalez. Filed byYinan Zhang. (Wang, Cecillia) (Filed on 2/8/2007) (Entered: 02/08/2007)
5 NOTICE of Appearance by Cecillia D. Wang (Wang, Cecillia) (Filed on 2/8/2007) (Entered: 02/08/2007)
6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 by Yinan Zhang , Alia Ahmedi, Zhong Fu, Abdul Ghafoor, Miao Ling Huang, Sana Jalili, Yan Wang, Yan Yin (Wang, Cecillia) (Filed on 2/20/2007) Modified on 2/23/2007 (ga, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/20/2007)
7 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Yinan Zhang. Michael Chertoff served on 2/21/2007, answer due 4/23/2007. (Wang, Cecillia) (Filed on 2/21/2007) (Entered: 02/21/2007)
8 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Yinan Zhang. Alberto R. Gonzalez served on 2/21/2007, answer due 4/23/2007. (Wang, Cecillia) (Filed on 2/21/2007) (Entered: 02/21/2007)
9 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Yinan Zhang. Emilio T. Gonzalez served on 2/21/2007, answer due 4/23/2007. (Wang, Cecillia) (Filed on 2/21/2007) (Entered: 02/21/2007)
10 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Yinan Zhang. Robert S. Mueller served on 2/21/2007, answer due 4/23/2007. (Wang, Cecillia) (Filed on 2/21/2007) (Entered: 02/21/2007)
11 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Yinan Zhang. David N. Still served on 2/21/2007, answer due 4/23/2007. (Wang, Cecillia) (Filed on 2/21/2007) (Entered: 02/21/2007)
Summons Issued as to David N. Still, Alberto R. Gonzalez, Michael Chertoff, Emilio T. Gonzalez, Robert S. Mueller. as to the Amended Complaint (ga, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/21/2007) (Entered: 02/23/2007)
12 Declination to Proceed Before a U.S. Magistrate Judge by David N. Still, Alberto R. Gonzalez, Michael Chertoff, Emilio T. Gonzalez, Robert S. Mueller. (Olsen, Edward) (Filed on 2/23/2007) (Entered: 02/23/2007)
13 CLERK'S NOTICE of Impending Reassignment to U.S. District Judge (wh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/23/2007) (Entered: 02/23/2007)
14 ORDER by Judge James Larson Granting 3 Motion to Withdraw as Attorneys. Attorney Scott T. Nonaka and Sandeep Solanki terminated (jlsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/23/2007) (Entered: 02/23/2007)
15 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong for all further proceedings. Judge James Larson no longer assigned to the case. Signed by Executive Committee on 2/26/07. (ha, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/26/2007) (Entered: 02/26/2007)

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?339961884849019-L_353_0-1

9/11/2007

CAND-ECF - Docket Report

Page 11 of 13

02/27/2007 02/27/2007 02/28/2007
03/01/2007 03/02/2007 04/10/2007 04/10/2007 04/18/2007 04/23/2007 04/24/2007
04/30/2007
04/30/2007
04/30/2007

16 CLERK'S NOTICE re: Petitioner's Failure to E-File re 1 (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/27/2007) (Entered: 02/27/2007)
17 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Alia Ahmedi, Yinan Zhang, Zhong Fu, Abdul Ghafoor, Miao Ling Huang, Sana Jalili, Yan Wang, Yan Yin (Wang, Cecillia) (Filed on 2/27/2007) (Entered: 02/27/2007)
18 CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER FOR REASSIGNED CIVIL CASES: Case Management Conference set for 5/3/2007 02:30 PM. VIA TELEPHONE. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 2/28/07. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/28/2007) Modified on 3/1/2007 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/28/2007)
19 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Alia Ahmedi, Yinan Zhang, Zhong Fu, Abdul Ghafoor, Miao Ling Huang, Sana Jalili, Yan Wang, Yan Yin (Wang, Cecillia) (Filed on 3/1/2007) (Entered: 03/01/2007)
20 NOTICE of Appearance by Elizabeth J. Stevens as Attorney for Defendants (Stevens, Elizabeth) (Filed on 3/2/2007) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
21 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3-5b) of discussion of ADR options (Olsen, Edward) (Filed on 4/10/2007) (Entered: 04/10/2007)
22 NOTICE of need for ADR Phone Conference (ADR L.R. 3-5 d) (Olsen, Edward) (Filed on 4/10/2007) (Entered: 04/10/2007)
23 NOTICE of Appearance by Jeffrey S. Robins (Robins, Jeffrey) (Filed on 4/18/2007) (Entered: 04/18/2007)
24 ADR Clerks Notice Setting ADR Phone Conference on 5/1/07 at 3:30 p.m. Please take note that plaintiff's counsel initiates the call to all parties. (tjs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/23/2007) (Entered: 04/23/2007)
25 STIPULATION and Proposed Order Modifying Case Management Conference Schedule by David N. Still, Alberto R. Gonzalez, Emilio T. Gonzalez, Robert S. Mueller. (Robins, Jeffrey) (Filed on 4/24/2007) Modified on 4/25/2007 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 4/25/2007 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/24/2007)
26 STIPULATION AND ORDER: That the Case Management Conference is CONTINUED to 5/17/2007 at 02:45 PM. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 4/30/07. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/30/2007) Modified on 5/1/2007 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/30/2007)
27 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Alberto R. Gonzalez, Michael Chertoff, Emilio T. Gonzalez, Robert S. Mueller. Motion Hearing set for 7/31/2007 01:00 PM in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Oakland. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3# 4 Proposed Order)(Robins, Jeffrey) (Filed on 4/30/2007) (Entered: 04/30/2007)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 27 MOTION to Dismiss. Motion Hearing set for 7/31/2007 01:00 PM in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Oakland. (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/30/2007) (Entered: 07/11/2007)

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?339961884849019-L_353_0-1

9/11/2007

CAND-ECF - Docket Report

Page 12 of 13

05/07/2007
05/09/2007 05/09/2007 06/11/2007 06/11/2007 06/12/2007 06/27/2007 06/27/2007
06/28/2007 07/12/2007 07/23/2007 07/26/2007

28 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND PROPOSED ORDER filed by David N. Still, Alia Ahmedi, Yinan Zhang, Zhong Fu, Abdul Ghafoor, Miao Ling Huang, Sana Jalili, Yan Wang, Yan Yin, Alberto R. Gonzalez, Michael Chertoff, Emilio T. Gonzalez, Robert S. Mueller. (Wang, Cecillia) (Filed on 5/7/2007) (Entered: 05/07/2007)
29 CLERK'S NOTICE Case Management Conference set for 7/31/2007 01:00 PM. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/9/2007) (Entered: 05/09/2007)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: re 29 Case Management Conference set for 7/31/2007 01:00 PM. (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/9/2007) (Entered: 07/11/2007)
30 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney and Proposed Order, filed by Alia Ahmedi, Zhong Fu, Abdul Ghafoor, Miao Ling Huang, Sana Jalili, Yan Wang, Yan Yin. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Mass, Julia) (Filed on 6/11/2007) Modified on 6/12/2007 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/11/2007)
31 Declaration of Sin Yen Ling in Support of 30 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney filed byAlia Ahmedi, Zhong Fu, Abdul Ghafoor, Miao Ling Huang, Sana Jalili, Yan Wang, Yan Yin. (Related document(s)30) (Mass, Julia) (Filed on 6/11/2007) (Entered: 06/11/2007)
32 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal and Proposed Order by Alia Ahmedi, Zhong Fu, Abdul Ghafoor, Miao Ling Huang, Sana Jalili, Yan Wang, Yan Yin (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Mass, Julia) (Filed on 6/12/2007) Modified on 6/13/2007 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/12/2007)
33 ORDER by Judge ARMSTRONG granting 30 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Christopher Joren Lyons and Cecillia D. Wang terminated (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/27/2007) (Entered: 06/27/2007)
34 ORDER: That the claims of Plaintiffs Alia Ahmadi, Zhong Fu, Abdul Ghafoor, Maio Ling Huang, Sana Jalili, Yan Wang, and Yan Yin are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong on 6/26/07. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/27/2007) Modified on 7/11/2007 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/27/2007)
35 Letter from Counsel for Class Plaintiffs Julia Harumi Mass. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Mass, Julia) (Filed on 6/28/2007) (Entered: 06/28/2007)
36 MOTION to Related Case ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 312 AND 7-11 AND PROPOSED ORDER filed by Alia Ahmadi. (Wang, Cecillia) (Filed on 7/12/2007) (Entered: 07/12/2007)
37 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Order to Show Cause Hearing set for 7/31/2007 01:00 PM. Show Cause Response due by 7/26/2007. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 7/23/07. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/23/2007) Modified on 7/24/2007 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/23/2007)
38 MOTION for Leave to File Late Response to Plaintiffs' Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related With Proposed Order (Unopposed), filed by David N. Still, Alberto R. Gonzalez, Michael Chertoff, Emilio T. Gonzalez, Robert S. Mueller. (Olsen, Edward) (Filed on 7/26/2007)

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?339961884849019-L_353_0-1

9/11/2007

CAND-ECF - Docket Report

Page 13 of 13

07/26/2007
07/31/2007 09/05/2007

Modified on 7/27/2007 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/26/2007)
39 Response to Plaintiffs' Administrative Motion To Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related With Proposed Order, filed by David N. Still, Alberto R. Gonzalez, Michael Chertoff, Emilio T. Gonzalez, Robert S. Mueller. (Olsen, Edward) (Filed on 7/26/2007) Modified on 7/27/2007 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/26/2007)
40 Minute Entry: Show Cause Hearing (Date Filed: 7/31/2007). (Court Reporter: DIANE SKILLMAN.) (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 7/31/2007) Modified on 9/6/2007 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/31/2007)
41 ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 9/4/07. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/5/2007) (Entered: 09/05/2007)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

09/11/2007 11:26:27

PACER Login: hs0328

Client Code: ddalton

Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 4:07-cv-00503-SBA

Billable Pages: 7

Cost:

0.56

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?339961884849019-L_353_0-1

9/11/2007