Case 1:08-cv-21588-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2008 Page 1 of 31

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

:·ILED BY ~

D.C.

7008 JUN -4 PH 1: 36

Case No. - - - - - - --CIV-

STEYUJ r·l. LARIMORE
CLERK U.S. DIST CT
S.D. OF FLA - HIA .

OKSANA WEAVER; LUCIANO HORNA; RAHEEL RANGOONWALA; DIN MOHAMMED; SAIFUDDIN SIDDIQUI;

) ) )

0 8 - 2CT1V~M5OR8EN8O

IMTIAZ ISAKH; MERCEDES GOMEZ;

)

NEY ROBERTO BOUTET; IMRAN SHAFF!; )

fl ORRES

and MOHAMMED KHEIRI, Plaintiffs-

)

Petitioners, individually and on behalf of all

)

others similarly situated,

)

)

v.

) COMPLAINT-CLASS ACTION

)

LINDA M. SWACINA, District Director,

)

Miami District, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration)

Services ("USCIS"), KATHY REDMAN,

)

District Director, Tampa District, USCIS;

)

JONATHAN SCHARFEN, Acting Director, )

USCIS; MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary, )

U.S. Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"); )

ROBERT S. MUELLER, III, Director, Federal )

Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"), and MICHAEL )

B. MUKASEY, U.S. Attorney General,

)

)

Defendants.

)

-------------------------~/

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. Plaintiffs-Petitioners ("Plaintiffs") are lawful permanent residents of the

United States whose applications for naturalization (citizenship) have been delayed for nearly

2-4 years since they completed the citizenship interview. Each is a longtime resident of the

United States, meets all statutory eligibility requirements for citizenship, and seeks to pledge

allegiance to the United States and participate fully in civic society as a U.S. citizen,

including by voting in the upcoming presidential election.

Case 1:08-cv-21588-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2008 Page 2 of 31
2. Federal law requires that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") render a decision on naturalization applications within 120 days of the naturalization interview (or "examination"), see 8 U.S.C.§ 1447(b). The law was enacted in 1990 primarily for the purpose of decreasing backlogs in the naturalization process, and reducing waiting times for naturalization applicants. See H.R. Rep. No. 101-187, at 8 (1989); 135 Cong. Rec. H4539-02, H4542 (1989) (statement ofRep. Morrison). In addition, Congress has stated that immigration applications (such as a citizenship application) should be processed within 180 days from the date of filing, see 8 U.S.C. § 1571 (b), and defines "backlog" as occurring where applications have been pending for more than 180 days, see 8 U.S.C. § 1572(1).
3. The named Plaintiffs' applications, however, have been pending for nearly 2-4 years since the naturalization interview, and there has still been no decision in their case.
4. Federal law also provides that where applicants meet all legal requirements for naturalization, USCIS "shall grant" the application, see 8 C.P.R. § 335.3(a).
5. Defendants, however, have unlawfully and unreasonably delayed rendering a decision on Plaintiffs' applications-long past the time periods prescribed by law-based on an FBI "name check" that is neither authorized nor required by law.
6. As a result of Defendants' unlawful actions, Plaintiffs suffer the hardships of unreasonably and unlawfully delayed naturalization, including anxiety over their immigration status, prolonged family separations, ineligibility for certain employment opportunities or public benefits reserved for U.S. citizens, and exclusion from the political process due to the inability to vote. Plaintiffs' experiences are typical of more than 50,000

Case 1:08-cv-21588-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2008 Page 3 of 31
naturalization applicants nationally whose applications have been unlawfully and unreasonably delayed due to FBI name checks.
7. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated within the Southern District of Florida, therefore respectfully request that the Court certify the proposed class, declare that Defendants' actions violate federal law, and require Defendants to complete the class members' name checks and adjudicate their applications for citizenship within 90 days.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 8. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) (jurisdiction to adjudicate naturalization applications delayed more than 120 days since the interview); 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question); 28 U.S.C. § 2201 (Declaratory Judgment Act); 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (mandamus); and 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (All Writs Act). 9. Venue is proper in the Southern District of Florida pursuant to 28 U.S. C. § 1391(e). Plaintiffs sue Defendants in their official capacities as officers and employees of the United States, and Plaintiffs reside in the Southern District of Florida. A substantial part of the events giving rise to this Complaint occurred within this District, in that Plaintiffs' applications for naturalization are pending in USCIS Field Offices within the Southern District of Florida. Venue is also proper in this District pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), which provides that a petition for review of a naturalization application shall be filed in the district where the applicant resides.

Case 1:08-cv-21588-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2008 Page 4 of 31
PARTIES Named Plaintiffs
10. Named Plaintiffs and proposed class representatives OKSANA WEAVER, LUCIANO HORNA, RAHEEL RANGOONWALA, DIN MOHAMMED, SAIFUDDIN SIDDIQUI, IMTIAZ ISAKH, MERCEDES GOMEZ, NEY ROBERTO BOUTET, IMRAN SHAFF!, and MOHAMMED KHEIRI, are lawful permanent residents of the United States who meet all statutory requirements for naturalization, including having undergone the naturalization interview more than 120 days ago. The named Plaintiffs reside in the Southern District of Florida, and their citizenship applications are pending in the Southern District of Florida. All have been told or have reason to believe that their applications have been delayed due to the pendency of the name check. Defendants
11. Defendant LINDA M. SWACINA is District Director of the Miami District of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCrS"). Ms. Swacina is responsible for applications for naturalization pending in the Miami District. She is sued in her official capacity.
12. Defendant KATHY REDMAN is Tampa Field Office Director for USCrS, and believed to be Director of the Tampa District Office for USCrS. Ms. Redman is responsible for applications for naturalization pending in the Tampa District, which includes the West Palm Beach Field Office. Ms. Redman is sued in her official capacity.
13. Defendant JONATHAN SCHARFEN is Acting Director ofUSCrS. Mr. Scharfen is responsible for processing and adjudicating all applications for naturalization

Case 1:08-cv-21588-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2008 Page 5 of 31
submitted to USCIS. As Acting Director ofUSCIS, Mr. Scharfen is also responsible for the scope and nature of the background checks conducted for naturalization applications, which are defined by USCIS by regulation or otherwise. Mr. Scharfen is sued in his official capacity.
14. Defendant MICHAEL CHERTOFF is Director ofthe U.S. Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), which encompasses USCIS. Mr. Chertoffis ultimately responsible for the administration of all immigration and naturalization laws, including the processing and adjudication of applications for naturalization. He is sued in his official capacity.
15. Defendant ROBERTS. MUELLER, III, is Director ofthe Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"). Mr. Mueller is ultimately responsible for the processing of criminal background checks and the "name checks" which are required by USCIS during the naturalization process. He is sued in his official capacity.
16. Defendant MICHAEL B. MUKASEY is Attorney General of the United States. He is the head of the U.S. Department of Justice, which encompasses the FBI. Mr. Mukasey is also jointly responsible with Mr. Chertoff for enforcing immigration laws. Mr. Mukasey is sued in his official capacity.
THE NATURALIZATION PROCESS 17. An individual is eligible to become a naturalized citizen of the United States if he or she has been a lawful permanent resident of the United States for the past five (5) years (or three (3) years if the applicant has been married to a U.S. citizen throughout that time), and is "a person of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution

Case 1:08-cv-21588-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2008 Page 6 of 31
of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States." 8 U.S.C. § 1427(a).
18. A lawful permanent resident may apply for citizenship by filing a detailed N-400 application with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS"), formerly the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). (In 2002, the INS was abolished with passage of the Homeland Security Act, Pub. L. No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (2002), and its responsibilities were transferred to departments within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"). Within DHS, USCIS assumed responsibility for adjudicating applications for naturalization, including background checks associated with those applications.)
19. In 1997, Congress passed an appropriations measure that prohibited the then-INS from adjudicating any application for naturalization until the INS "received confirmation from the Federal Bureau of Investigation that a full criminal background check has been completed." Pub.L. 105-119, Tit. I, Nov. 26, 2007, 111 Stat. 2448. In 1998, the then-INS promulgated regulations to implement the criminal background check requirement. See 8 C.P.R. § 335.2(b). Thus, after the application has been filed, USCIS requires each applicant to submit fingerprints to the FBI for the purpose of conducting a criminal background check. The criminal background check is usually completed within days, if not hours.
20. After USCIS has received the completed results of the criminal background check, USCIS schedules the applicant for a naturalization interview (or "examination"). In 1998, the INS promulgated regulations stating that "[t]he Service will notify applicants for naturalization to appear before a Service officer for initial examination

Case 1:08-cv-21588-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2008 Page 7 of 31
on the naturalization application only after the Service has received a definitive response from the Federal Bureau of Investigation that a full criminal background check of an applicant has been completed." 8 C.P.R. § 335.2(b).
21. A "definitive response" from the FBI is defined as: "(1) Confirmation from the Federal Bureau of Investigation that an applicant does not have an administrative or a criminal record; (2) Confirmation from the Federal Bureau oflnvestigation that an applicant has an administrative or a criminal record; or (3) Confirmation from the Federal Bureau oflnvestigation that two properly prepared fingerprint cards (Form FD-258) have been determined unclassifiable for the purpose of conducting a criminal background check and have been rejected." 8 C.P.R. § 335.2(b).
22. At the naturalization interview (or "examination"), the applicant meets with a USCIS officer, is tested in Civics and English language requirements, unless those are waived, and must be advised in writing of any deficiencies in the application. 8 C.P.R. § 335.3(b).
23. Federal law requires a decision on the application within 120 days of the naturalization interview (or "examination"). Pursuant to federal regulations, "A decision to grant or deny the application shall be made at the time of the initial examination or within 120-days after the date of the initial examination of the applicant for naturalization under § 335.2. The applicant shall be notified that the application has been granted or denied and, if the application has been granted, of the procedures to be followed for the administration of the oath of allegiance pursuant to part 337 of this chapter." 8 C.P.R. § 335.3(a) (emphasis added).

Case 1:08-cv-21588-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2008 Page 8 of 31
24. Federal law also requires that naturalization be granted to any applicant who complies with all legal requirements. Federal regulations expressly provide: "The Service officer shall grant the application if the applicant has complied with all requirements for naturalization under this chapter." 8 C.P.R. § 335.3(a) (emphasis added). In other words, where the requirements are met, naturalization is mandatory not discretionary.
25. Once the application is granted, the applicant must take an oath of allegiance before a USCIS officer or a judge to be sworn in as a U.S. citizen.
THE FBI NAME CHECK 26. Federal law defines the required "criminal background check" to include only a fingerprint records check. 8 C.P.R. § 335.2(b). 27. Starting in 2002, however, USCIS dramatically altered the naturalization process by requiring expansive FBI "name checks" for all naturalization applicants, even though no FBI name check is required or authorized by law. FBI name checks have caused extraordinary, unlawful and unreasonable delays in the adjudication of applications for naturalization. USCIS implemented the FBI name checks without providing notice to the public, and without promulgating any regulations. 28. On information and belief, before 2002 USCIS may have also requested limited FBI name checks only to determine whether a citizenship applicant was the subject of an FBI investigation. 29. In 2002, however, USCIS dramatically expanded the FBI "name checks" it requires for naturalization applicants, even though there was no change in the law requiring or authorizing the name check or its expansion. Rather than simply search to

Case 1:08-cv-21588-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2008 Page 9 of 31
determine whether an applicant is the subject of an FBI investigation, USCIS implemented an expanded FBI name to include a search for any reference to the applicant's name (or to a similar name, or even to a common "fragment" of a name) in any type of file to which the FBI has access, in every case, and for an indefinite period of time.
30. On information and belief, name checks that include a search for all "references" can tum up a "hit" if the applicant (or anyone with a similar name, or a common "fragment" of a name) appears in any type of record (including, for example, personnel files that list the name of a job applicant or reference) and for any reason (including, for example, as someone who has applied for security clearances for professional reasons, or has been the witness to--or victim of-a crime) at any time in the past. Any such "hit" may then prompt further research by the FBI, which FBI has said can cause the agency to manually search paper records that pre-date 1995 and have to be retrieved from any one of about 265 physical locations around the country.
31. As a result, innocent citizenship applicants who have cleared criminal background checks and are not the subject of any FBI investigation can have their applications significantly delayed simply on the basis of a "hit" that has absolutely no bearing on their eligibility for citizenship, and may not even relate to the citizenship applicant him- or herself, but rather to someone with a similar name.
32. Name checks are not required or authorized by law. Yet, USCIS refuses to adjudicate applications for naturalization until it completes this name check process, even when doing so results in years of delay for applicants who meet every statutory requirement for citizenship.

Case 1:08-cv-21588-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2008 Page 10 of 31
33. In addition to delays caused by the FBI name check itself, USCIS causes
additional delays by failing to timely complete its review of name check results after
receiving them from the FBI.
34. In 2006 and 2007, USCIS' Ombudsman (a Congressionally-mandated
independent office of the Department of Homeland Security) provided annual reports to
Congress describing the systemic delays caused by FBI name checks, and questioning their
value. See USCIS Ombudsman Annual Report 2006, available at
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOmbudsman_AnnualReport_2006.pdf; and
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOMB_Annual_Report_2007 . p d f .
35. As early as 2006, the USCIS Ombudsman reported that:
FBI name checks, one of the security screening tools used by USCIS, significantly delay adjudication of immigration benefits for many customers, hinder backlog reductions efforts, and may not achieve their intended national security objectives.
36. The USCIS Ombudsman further stated that:
The name checks are not sought by the FBI as part of ongoing investigations or from a need to learn more about an individual because of any threat or risk perceived by the FBI. Instead, the name checks are a fee- for-service that the FBI provides to USCIS at its request. Moreover, the FBI does not record any additional information about the names USCIS submits and does not routinely take any further action. Instead, the FBI reviews its files much like a credit reporting entity would verify and report on information to commercial entities requesting credit validations.
(emphasis in original).
37. In 2007, the USCIS Ombudsman again reported to Congress that:
FBI name checks, one of several security screening tools used by USCIS, continue to significantly delay adjudication of immigration benefits for many customers, hinder backlog reductions efforts, and may not achieve their

Case 1:08-cv-21588-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2008 Page 11 of 31
intended national security objectives.
38. In 2007, the USCIS Ombudsman added that:
FBI name checks may be the single biggest obstacle to the timely and efficient delivery of immigration benefits. The problem of long-pending FBI name check cases worsened during the reporting period.
(emphasis in original).
39. The USCIS Ombudsman further reported that:
The Ombudsman agrees with the assessment of many case workers and supervisors at USCIS field offices and service centers that the FBI name check process has limited value to public safety or national security, especially because in almost every case the applicant is in the United States during the name check process, living or working without restriction.
(emphasis added).
40. After years of studying the FBI name check problem, the USCIS
Ombudsman even reported that:
To date, the Ombudsman has been unable to ascertain from USCIS the total number of actual problem cases that the agency discovered exclusively as a result of the FBI name check. The Ombudsman understands that most, if not all, of the problem cases which would result in an eventual denial of benefits also can be revealed by the other more efficient, automated criminal and security checks that USCIS initiates.
(emphasis added).
41. The USCIS Ombudsman concluded that:
FBI name checks may be the single biggest obstacle to the timely and efficient delivery of immigration benefits.
(emphasis added).
42. The USCIS-imposed FBI "name checks" that include a search for all
"references" thus cause extraordinary and unreasonable delays in the processing of

Case 1:08-cv-21588-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2008 Page 12 of 31
naturalization applications, with no tangible benefit offered in return. 43. USCIS' "name check" policy for all naturalization applications was
implemented rashly by USCIS without providing notice to, or soliciting comment from, the public.
44. The "name check" is not required or authorized by law. 45. USCIS has been, and is, aware of the unreasonableness of its name check pattern and practice. 46. In addition, USCIS has been, and is, aware of the unreasonable delays its name check pattern and practice causes applicants for naturalization. 47. USCIS and FBI cause additional delay by operating under the belief that there is absolutely no "deadline" for completing name checks, and the review thereof. 48. USCIS also causes additional delay by failing to complete its review of FBI name check results within a reasonable amount of time after receiving them. 49. In conducting, prioritizing, and completing name checks in conjunction with applications for naturalization, FBI acts at the direction of USCIS. 50. Part of the fees that naturalization applicants are required to pay for their applications to be processed is paid to FBI (through USCIS) for the purpose of completing name checks.
NAMED PLAINTIFFS Plaintiff OKSANA WEAVER
51. PlaintiffOKSANA WEAVER, a Russian national, has been a lawful permanent resident of the United States for more than eight (8) years. Ms. Weaver resides in

Case 1:08-cv-21588-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2008 Page 13 of 31
Deerfield Beach with her U.S. citizen husband, and their U.S. citizen child. Ms. Weaver's parents are naturalized U.S. citizens. She works as an academic advisor for a local university.
52. Ms. Weaver applied for naturalization on September 4, 2004, and underwent her naturalization interview on September 14, 2005, passing the civics and language requirements. For more than two-and-a-half (2 'li) years since the interview, Ms. Weaver has not received any decision on her application.
53. Ms. Weaver has made numerous inquiries about the status of her case, including by writing letters to the USCIS Ombudsman, the FBI, her U.S. Representative, her U.S. Senators, and the Governor of Florida, but these have been to no avail.
54. Ms. Weaver has suffered and continues to suffer prejudice from the unreasonable delay of her naturalization. While she awaits an adjudication on her application, Ms. Weaver is deprived of the substantial and unique rights and duties of U.S. citizenship, including eligibility for federal employment opportunities and the right to vote in the upcoming presidential election. Plaintiff LUCIANO HORNA
55. Plaintiff LUCIANO HORNA, a Panamanian national, has been a lawful permanent resident of the United States for more than nine (9) years. Mr. Homa resides in Miami with his U.S. citizen wife, and two U.S. citizen children. Mr. Homa has been an airline pilot for more than thirty (30) years; as part of his profession, he regularly undergoes meticulous security checks which he always clears.

Case 1:08-cv-21588-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2008 Page 14 of 31
56. Mr. Horna applied for naturalization on November 15, 2005, and underwent his naturalization interview on or about April or May 2006, passing the civics and language requirements. For more than two (2) years since the interview, however, Mr. Horna has not received any decision on his application. Mr. Horna's wife, son and daughter all applied for U.S. citizenship around the same time that he did, yet they received their oath ceremony letters within a month or so, while Mr. Horna has been waiting for his for years.
57. Mr. Horna has made numerous inquiries about the status of his case, including by contacting USCIS and his U.S. Representative, but these have been to no avail.
58. Mr. Horna has suffered and continues to suffer prejudice from the unreasonable delay of his naturalization. While he awaits an adjudication on his application, Mr. Horna is deprived of the substantial and unique rights and duties of U.S. citizenship, including eligibility for federal employment, and the right to vote in the upcoming presidential election. PlaintiffRAHEEL RANGOONWALA
59. PlaintiffRAHEEL RANGOONWALA, a Pakistani national, has been a lawful permanent resident of the United States for nearly ten (10) years. Mr. Rangoonwala resides in Coconut Creek, and works at a convenience store. Mr. Rangoonwala is married, but his wife remains in Pakistan until they can be reunited in the United States.
60. Mr. Rangoonwala applied for naturalization on October 31, 2003, and underwent his naturalization interview on or about January 3, 2005, passing the civics and language requirements. For more than three (3) years since the interview, however, Mr. Rangoonwala has not received any decision on his application.

Case 1:08-cv-21588-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2008 Page 15 of 31
61. Mr. Rangoonwala has made numerous inquiries about the status of his case, including by contacting USCIS and his U.S. Senator, but these have been to no avail.
62. Mr. Rangoonwala has suffered and continues to suffer prejudice from the unreasonable delay of his naturalization. While he awaits an adjudication on his application, Mr. Rangoonwala is deprived of the substantial and unique rights and duties ofU.S. citizenship, including the ability to petition for prompt reunification with his wife as a U.S. citizen, and the right to vote in the upcoming presidential election. Plaintiff DIN MOHAMMED
63. Plaintiff DIN MOHAMMED, a Bangladeshi national, has been a lawful permanent resident of the United States for more than eight (8) years. Mr. Mohammed resides in Miramar, and works at a convenience store. Mr. Mohammed is married, but his wife remains in Bangladesh awaiting the approval of a relative immigration petition so that they can be reunited in the United States.
64. Mr. Mohammed applied for naturalization on February 28, 2005, and underwent his naturalization interview on August 16, 2005, passing the civics and language requirements. For nearly three (3) years since the interview, however, Mr. Mohammed has not received any decision on his application.
65. Mr. Mohammed has made numerous inquiries about the status of his case, including by contacting USCIS and his U.S. Representative, but these have been to no avail.
66. Mr. Mohammed has suffered and continues to suffer prejudice from the unreasonable delay of his naturalization. While he awaits an adjudication on his application, Mr. Mohammed is deprived of the substantial and unique rights and duties of U.S.

Case 1:08-cv-21588-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2008 Page 16 of 31
citizenship, including prompt reunification with one's spouse, eligibility for federal employment, and the right to vote in the upcoming presidential election. Plaintiff SAIFUDDIN SIDDIQUI
67. Plaintiff SAIFUDDIN SIDDIQUI, a Pakistani national, has been a lawful permanent resident of the United States for more than twelve (12) years. Mr. Siddiqui resides in Miami Shores with his U.S. citizen. He works as an engineer for Miami-Dade County.
68. Mr. Siddiqui applied for naturalization on April20, 2005, and underwent his naturalization interview on January 5, 2006, passing the civics and language requirements. For more than two (2) years since the interview, however, Mr. Siddiqui has not received any decision on his application. By contrast, Mr. Siddiqui's wife, who was interviewed on her naturalization application the same day as her husband, received her citizenship certificate just months after the interview, on April 21, 2006.
69. Mr. Siddiqui has made numerous inquiries about the status of his case, including by contacting USCIS and his U.S. Senator, but these have been to no avail.
70. Mr. Siddiqui has suffered and continues to suffer prejudice from the unreasonable delay of his naturalization. While he awaits an adjudication on his application, Mr. Siddiqui is deprived of the substantial and unique rights and duties of U.S. citizenship, including employment opportunities and the right to vote in the upcoming presidential election.

Case 1:08-cv-21588-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2008 Page 17 of 31
Plaintiff IMTIAZ ISAKH 71. Plaintiff IMTIAZ ISAKH, a Guyanese national, has been a lawful permanent
resident of the United States for more than ten (10) years. Mr. Isakh resides in Pembroke Pines, and works part-time as a school teacher.
72. Mr. Isakh applied for naturalization on January.l8, 2005, and underwent his naturalization interview on January 27, 2006, passing the civics and language requirements. For more than two (2) years since the interview, however, Mr. Isakh has not received any decision on his application.
73. Mr. Isakh has made numerous inquiries about the status of his case, but these have been to no avail.
74. Mr. lsakh has suffered and continues to suffer prejudice from the unreasonable delay of his naturalization. While he awaits an adjudication on his application, Mr. Isakh is deprived of the substantial and unique rights and duties of U.S. citizenship, including eligibility for employment opportunities, and the right to vote in the upcoming presidential election. Plaintiff MERCEDES GOMEZ
75. Plaintiff MERCEDES GOMEZ, a Cuban national, has been a lawful permanent resident of the United States for more than nine (9) years. Ms. Gomez resides in Miami with her children. Ms. Gomez is disabled.
76. Ms. Gomez applied for naturalization on January 18, 2006, and underwent her naturalization interview on May 23, 2006, satisfying all requirements. For more than two (2) years since the interview, however, Ms. Gomez has not received any decision on her

Case 1:08-cv-21588-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2008 Page 18 of 31
application. 77. Ms. Gomez has made numerous inquiries about the status of her case, but these
have been to no avail. 78. Ms. Gomez has suffered and continues to suffer prejudice from the
unreasonable delay of her naturalization. While she awaits an adjudication on her application, Ms. Gomez is deprived of the substantial and unique rights and duties of U.S. citizenship, including eligibility for some federal benefits based on her disability and the right to vote in the upcoming presidential election. PlaintiffNEY ROBERTO BOUTET
79. PlaintiffNEY ROBERTO BOUTET, a Panamanian national, has been a lawful permanent resident of the United States for more than seven (7) years. Mr. Boutet resides in Coral Gables, and is a self-employed commercial real estate broker.
80. Mr. Boutet applied for naturalization on or about February 16, 2006, and underwent his naturalization interview on August 10, 2006, passing the civics and language requirements. For nearly two (2) years since the interview, however, Mr. Boutet has not received any decision on his application.
81. Mr. Boutet has inquired about the status of his case, but this has been to no avail.
82. Mr. Boutet has suffered and continues to suffer prejudice from the unreasonable delay of his naturalization. While he awaits an adjudication on his application, Mr. Boutet is deprived of the substantial and unique rights and duties of U.S. citizenship, including the right to vote in the upcoming presidential election.

Case 1:08-cv-21588-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2008 Page 19 of 31
Plaintiff IMRAN SHAFFI 83. PlaintiffiMRAN SHAFF!, a Pakistani national, has been a lawful permanent
resident of the United States for more than nine (9) years. Mr. Shaffi resides in Boca Raton with his U.S. citizen wife, and two U.S. citizen children, and works as a security officer.
84. Mr. Shaffi applied for naturalization on October 14, 2003, and underwent his naturalization interview on February 6, 2006, passing the civics and language requirements. For more than two (2) years since the interview, however, Mr. Shaffi has not received any decision on his application. Mr. Shaffi's wife, son and daughter all applied for citizenship around the same time as he did, but their applications were soon granted, while his still has not been adjudicated after years of delay.
85. Mr. Shaffi has made numerous inquiries about the status of his case, including by contacting USCIS and his U.S. Representative, but these have been to no avail.
86. Mr. Shaffi has suffered and continues to suffer prejudice from the unreasonable delay of his naturalization. While he awaits an adjudication on his application, Mr. Shaffi is deprived of the substantial and unique rights and duties of U.S. citizenship, including the right to vote in the upcoming presidential election. Plaintiff MOHAMED KHEIRI
87. Plaintiff MOHAMED KHEIRI, a Moroccan national, has been a lawful permanent resident of the United States for more than seven (7) years. Mr. Kheiri resides in Boca Raton, and works as a taxi driver.
88. Mr. Kheiri applied for naturalization on November 25, 2005, and underwent his naturalization interview on June 20, 2006, passing the civics and language requirements.

Case 1:08-cv-21588-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2008 Page 20 of 31
For nearly two (2) years since the interview, however, Mr. Kheiri has not received any decision on his application.
89. Mr. Kheiri has made numerous inquiries about the status of his case, including by contacting his U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators, but these have been to no avail.
90. Mr. Kheiri has suffered and continues to suffer prejudice from the unreasonable delay of his naturalization. While he awaits an adjudication on his application, Mr. Kheiri is deprived of the substantial and unique rights and duties of U.S. citizenship, including the right to vote in the upcoming presidential election.
DEFENDANTS' UNLAWFUL POLICIES AND PRACTICES 91. On information and belief, Defendants SWACINA, REDMAN, SCHARFEN and CHERTOFF have a policy, pattern and practice of failing to adjudicate the naturalization applications of the proposed plaintiff class within 120 days of the naturalization examination, in disregard of statutory deadlines, because of the FBI name check process. 92. On information and belief, Defendants SWACINA, REDMAN, SCHARFEN and CHERTOFF have a policy, pattern and practice of unlawfully withholding and unreasonably delaying adjudication of the naturalization applications of the proposed plaintiff class, in disregard of statutory deadlines, because of the FBI name check process. 93. On information and belief, Defendants SWACINA, REDMAN, SCHARFEN and CHERTOFF have a policy, pattern and practice of unlawfully requiring completed name checks before adjudicating the naturalization applications of the proposed plaintiff class, despite having no statutory or regulatory authorization for such name checks.

Case 1:08-cv-21588-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2008 Page 21 of 31
94. On information and belief, Defendants SCHARFEN and CHERTOFF unlawfully implemented name checks as a prerequisite to naturalization without public notice and without providing a period for public comment. Requiring name checks as a prerequisite to naturalization effected a substantive change in existing law resulting in undue hardship and burden to the proposed plaintiff class.
95. On information and belief, Defendants SWACINA, REDMAN, SCHARFEN and CHERTOFF have a policy, pattern and practice of unlawfully withholding and unreasonably delaying adjudication of the proposed plaintiffs class's applications for naturalization by failing to promptly act on applications after they receive name check results from the FBI.
96. On information and belief, Defendants SWACINA, REDMAN, SCHARFEN and CHERTOFF have a policy, pattern and practice of failing to take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure that name checks are completed within a reasonable time, and to complete the adjudication of applications for naturalization in a lawful and timely fashion after receiving name check results, despite being on notice of the problem for years.
97. On information and belief, Defendants MUELLER and MUKASEY have a policy, pattern and practice of unreasonably and unlawfully delaying completion of FBI name checks with the full knowledge that USCIS will not adjudicate the naturalization applications of the proposed plaintiff class until the name checks are completed.
98. On information and belief, Defendants MUELLER and MUKASEY have a policy, pattern and practice of failing to timely complete the name checks of the proposed

Case 1:08-cv-21588-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2008 Page 22 of 31
plaintiff class, operating on the belief that they is absolutely no "deadline" or other temporal limitation to complete them.
99. As a result of Defendants' policies, practices, actions and omissions, the proposed plaintiff class has suffered injury, in that they have been unlawfully denied the rights and benefits of U.S. citizenship
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 100. Pursuant to Rule 23, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated. The proposed plaintiff class consists of: All lawful permanent residents of the United States residing in the Southern District of Florida who have submitted naturalization applications to USCIS but whose naturalization applications have not been determined within 120 days of the date of their initial examination due to the pendency of the "name check" process. 101. The requirements of Rule 23(a) are met in that the members of the proposed plaintiff class are so numerous that joinder is impracticable, there are questions of law and fact common to all members of the proposed plaintiff class, the claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of those of the proposed plaintiff class members, and the named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the proposed plaintiff class. 102. A class action is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(l)(A) because inconsistent adjudications about the lawfulness or reasonableness of delays caused by the name check process, or about the lawfulness of the name check process, would establish incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants.

Case 1:08-cv-21588-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2008 Page 23 of 31
103. A class action is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(2) because Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, by unlawfully and unreasonably delaying the adjudication of the proposed class members' naturalization applications based on the pendency of the name check process; by unlawfully and unreasonably delaying completion of proposed class members' name checks; and by unlawfully requiring a completed name check before adjudicating the proposed class members' applications for naturalization.
104. On information and belief, approximately 58,000 naturalization applications are delayed nationally pending completion of the name checks. Undersigned counsel are aware of dozens of lawsuits recently brought in the Southern District of Florida by persons similarly situated to plaintiffs seeking adjudication of their delayed applications. Undersigned counsel are unaware of the exact number of proposed class members, but believe that there are at least several hundred individuals similarly situated to Plaintiffs residing in this judicial district. The size of the class may be closed, however, due to USCIS' announced practice since 2006 not to schedule citizenship interviews until after the FBI name checks are completed. Because Defendants are best able to determine the exact number of proposed class members, undersigned counsel will request leave to serve Defendants with discovery requests targeted to this issue.
105. There are questions oflaw and fact common to the proposed class that predominate over any questions affecting only the individually named Plaintiffs, including (1) whether Defendants' failure to render a decision on the naturalization applications of the proposed class within 120 days of the date of the naturalization examination, due to name

Case 1:08-cv-21588-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2008 Page 24 of 31
check delays, violates federal law; (2) whether Defendants' requiring a name check as a prerequisite to naturalization violates the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act; and (3) whether Defendants' unlawful withholding and unreasonable delay in completing name checks, and in processing name check results, with the full knowledge that USCIS requires the completion of such name checks before rending a decision on the proposed plaintiff class's naturalization applications, violates the Administrative Procedure Act.
106. The named Plaintiffs' claims are typical of the claims of the proposed class members. Like the named Plaintiffs, all proposed class members have not had their naturalization applications determined within the statutorily-mandated 120-day period following their naturalization examinations, have been deprived of notice and an opportunity to comment on the name check requirement, and have had a decision on their naturalization applications unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed due to the name check process.
107. Like the named Plaintiffs, all proposed class members are suffering injuries from the unlawful delay of their naturalization applications, including the inability to participate in civic society by voting or serving on juries, prolonged family separations due to the inability to sponsor immediate relatives for lawful permanent resident status as U.S. citizens, the inability to apply for employment opportunities or public benefits that require U.S. citizenship, and the stigma of an uncertain status in the country they have made their home.
108. The named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests of all members of the proposed class because they seek relief on behalf of the class as a whole and

Case 1:08-cv-21588-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2008 Page 25 of 31
have no interest antagonistic to other members of the class. The named Plaintiffs are represented by pro bono counsel, the Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center, who have expertise in immigration law and class action litigation.
109. The requirements of Rule 23(b)(2) are also met because Defendants acted (or failed to act) in an unlawful manner applicable to all proposed plaintiff class members in failing to render a decision on the proposed plaintiff class members' naturalization applications within the statutorily-mandated 120-day period, unlawfully imposing a name check requirement without notice or comment, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act; and otherwise unlawfully withholding and unreasonably delaying agency actions, thereby making appropriate final relief with respect to the class as a whole.
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ALLEGATIONS 110. An actual and substantial controversy exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants as to their respective legal rights and duties. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants' actions violate Plaintiffs' rights and the rights of proposed class members. Defendants contend the opposite. 111. Defendants' failure to timely adjudicate Plaintiffs' naturalization applications, and the applications of proposed class members, has caused and will continue to cause irreparable injury to Plaintiffs and the proposed class members. Plaintiffs have no plain, speedy and adequate remedy at law.

Case 1:08-cv-21588-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2008 Page 26 of 31
CAUSES OF ACTION FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF RIGHT TO JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF APPLICATION FOR NATURALIZATION PURSUANT TO 8 U.S.C. §1447(b) [By Plaintiffs Against USCIS Defendants Swacina, Redman, Scharfen and Chertof:f] 112. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through Ill above are repeated and incorporated as though fully set forth herein. 113. Because Defendants have unlawfully failed to adjudicate the naturalization applications of the named Plaintiffs and proposed class members within 120 days of the naturalization examination, each named Plaintiff and proposed class member is entitled to a hearing on his or her naturalization application by the Court under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). 114. This Court should grant the named Plaintiffs' and proposed class members' naturalization applications pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), because each meets all requirements for naturalization and federal law therefore requires that the application be granted. 115. In the alternative, this Court should remand the applications to USCIS with specific instructions to complete name checks and adjudicate the applications within 90 days, under 8 U.S. C. § 1447(b). SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF UNREASONABLE DELAY IN VIOLATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT [By Plaintiffs Against USCIS Defendants and FBI Defendants] 116. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 though 111 above are repeated and incorporated as though fully set forth herein.

Case 1:08-cv-21588-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2008 Page 27 of 31
117. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires all administrative agencies to conclude matters presented to them "within a reasonable time." 5 U.S. C. § 555(b). A district court reviewing agency action may "compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed." 5 U.S.C. § 706(1). "Agency action" includes, in relevant part, "an agency rule, order, license, sanction, relief, or the equivalent or denial thereof, or failure to act." 5 U.S.C. § 551(13).
118. The failure ofDefendants SWACINA, REDMAN, SCHARFEN and CHERTOFF to adjudicate Plaintiffs' applications for naturalization within 120 days of their naturalization examinations violates the APA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 555(b) and 706.
119. The failure of Defendants MUKASEY and MUELLER to complete name checks within a reasonable time, particularly with the full knowledge that USCIS requires completion of such name checks for adjudicating the named Plaintiffs' and proposed class members's applications for naturalization, violates the APA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 555(b) and 706.
120. The failure ofDefendants SWACINA, REDMAN, SCHARFEN and CHERTOFF to ensure that the name checks of the named Plaintiffs and the proposed class members are promptly completed, and failure to process name check results received from the FBI within a reasonable time, violates the APA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 555(b) and 706.
121. As a result of Defendants' actions, named Plaintiffs and the proposed class members have suffered and continue to suffer injury. Declaratory and injunctive relief are therefore warranted.

Case 1:08-cv-21588-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2008 Page 28 of 31
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF FAILURE TO FOLLOW NOTICE-AND-COMMENT REQUIREMENTS
OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT [By Plaintiffs Against USCIS Defendants Swacina, Redman, Scharfen and Chertoff]
122. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 though 111 above are repeated and incorporated as though fully set forth herein.
123. By regulation, USCIS is required to receive the result of an FBI criminal background check before it may grant a naturalization application. 8 C.P.R. § 335.2(b). USCIS, however, has added a new substantive requirement to the naturalization process, known as a name check, that is neither authorized nor required by law. The name check constitutes a substantive rule that departs from prior policy and practice.
124. Defendants Swacina, Redman, Scharfen and Chertoffimplemented the "name check" requirement without public notice or providing a period for public comment, even though the name check requirement has an adverse impact on individuals whose naturalization applications are delayed as a result.
125. The failure to provide a notice-and-comment period before implementing the name check requirement violates the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S. C. § 553.
126. As a result of Defendants' actions, the named Plaintiffs and proposed plaintiff class members have suffered and continue to suffer injury. Declaratory and injunctive relief are therefore warranted.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that the Court: A. Assume jurisdiction over the matter;

Case 1:08-cv-21588-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2008 Page 29 of 31
B. Certify this case as a class action lawsuit, as proposed herein; C. Grant the named Plaintiffs,and proposed class members' applications for naturalization pursuant to 8 U.S. C. § 1447(b); D. In the alternative, order Defendants to complete the named Plaintiffs' and proposed class members' name checks within 60 days, and order Defendants to promptly render a decision on the naturalization applications within 30 days thereafter; E. Issue a declaratory judgment holding unlawful (1) the failure of Defendants SWACINA, REDMAN, SCHARFEN and CHERTOFF to adjudicate applications for naturalization within 120 days of the date of the naturalization interview; (2) the failure of Defendants MUKASEY and MUELLER to complete name checks within a reasonable time; (3) the failure of Defendants to take all necessary steps to ensure that name checks are completed within a reasonable time; (4) the failure of Defendants SWACINA, REDMAN, SCHARFEN and CHERTOFF to process name check results received from the FBI within a reasonable time; and (5) the failure of Defendants to take all necessary steps to assure that applications for naturalization are adjudicated within 120 days of the date of the naturalization interview as required by law; F. Declare void, set aside and enjoin the name check process for failure to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act's notice-and-comment requirement; G. Enjoin Defendants' unlawful conduct; H. Award reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 5 U.S.C. § 504 and 28 U.S.C. § 2412; and I. Gr<;tnt any and all further relief this Court deems just and proper.

Case 1:08-cv-21588-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2008 Page 30 of 31
Respectfully submitted,
Tania Galloni Fla. Bar No: 619221 Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center 3000 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 400 Miami, FL 33137 Tel: (305) 573-1106, ext. 1080 Fax: (305) 576-6273 .. Email: tgalloni@fiacfla.org
Mary M. Gundrum Fla. Bar. No. 937339 Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center 3000 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 400 Miami, FL 33137 Tel: (305) 573-1106, ext. 1020 Fax: (305) 576-6273 Email: mgundrum@fiacfla.org
Cheryl Little Fla. Bar No. 655678 Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center 3000 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 400 Miami, FL 33137 Tel: (305) 573-1106, ext. 1001 Fax: (305) 576-6273 Email: clittle@fiacfla.org
Khurrum B. Wahid Fla. Bar No. 178764 Wahid, Vizcaino & Maher 3191 Coral Way, Suite 406 Miami, FL 33145 Tel: (305) 444-4303 Fax: (305) 444-4302 Email: khurrum@wvmlawfirm.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Petitioners

Case 1:08-cv-21588-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2008 Page 31 of 31

"'lS 44 (Rev. 2/08)

CIVIL COVER SHEET

tTbhyheelocJicSvai4llr4ducoleicvskioel tcfocshoveueerrtts..hTe(ehStiEsaEnfodINrtmhSe,TaiRnpufpocrroTmvioeaNdtisobnyoNcthoenTtHJauEidnRiecdEiaVhlEeCrReoSinnEfneoerFeitnThcHeerEoreFfpOtlhaRecMeU.n)noitresduSpNptalteOemsTeinnICtStEehpe:tfeAimlitnbtgoerarnn19de7ys4es,rviMsicrUeeqoSmfTprleeIdandfdoinircgthasetoeursAoethlolefRrtpheae-pfCeillreesrdaksCorefaqCsuoeiusrerBtdfebolyrotJwhaew.p, uerxpcoespet

as of

provided mitiating

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTS

OKSANA WEAVER, et al.

(b) County of Residence of First listed Plaintiff Broward
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)
(c) Attorney's (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)
Tania Galloni, Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center 3000 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 400, Miami, FL 33137 (305) 573-1106, ext. 1080

NOTE: LAND INVOLVED.
Attorneys (If Known)
U.S. Attorney, 99 NE 4th Street, Suite 300, Miami, FL 33132

.6 (d) Check County Where Action Arose: MIAMI- DADE LJ MONROE LJ BROWARD LJ PALM BEACH LJ MARTIN

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an "X" in One Box Only)

LJ 1 U.S. Government Plaintiff

0 3 Federal Question (U.S. Government Not a Party)

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PAR

(For Diversity Cases Only)

PTF DEF

Citizen of This State

LJ

LJ I

4 LJ 4

,/LJ 2 U.S. Government
Defendant

Ll 4 Diversity (Indicate Citizenship ofParties in Item III)

Citizen of Another State Ll

_eli- ~---''='"-c.....:l o :To(l. /2..t!:s

Citizen or Subject of a Forei

IV NATUR E 0 FS UIT (Place an "X" in One Box Only)

CONTRACT

TORTS

FORFEITURE/PENALTY

BANKRUPTCY

LJ 110 Insurance
LJ 120 Marine LJ 130 Miller Act LJ 140 Negotiable Instrument Ll 150 Recovery of Overpayment
& Enforcement of Judgment LJ 151 Medicare Act LJ 152 Recovery of Defaulted
Student Loans (ExcI. Veterans) Ll 153 Recovery of Overpayment ofVeteran's Benefits LJ 160 Stockholders' Suits Ll 190 Other Contract LJ 195 Contract Product Liability LJ 196 Franchise REAL PROPERTY LJ 210 Land Condemnation LJ 220 Foreclosure LJ 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment LJ 240 Torts to Land LJ 245 Tort Product Liability
LJ 290 All Other Real Property

PERSONAL INJURY LJ 310 Airplane LJ 315 Airplane Product
Liability LJ 320 Assault, Libel &
Slander LJ 330 Federal Employers'
Liability

PERSONAL INJURY LJ

LJ 362 Personal Injury- LJ

Med. Malpractice LJ

LJ 365 Personal Injury -

Product Liability

LJ

LJ 368 Asbestos Personal LJ

Injury Product

LJ

Liability

LJ

LJ 340 Marine LJ 345 Marine Product

PERSONAL PROPERTY

LJ 370 Other Fraud

LJ

Liability LJ 350 Motor Vehicle LJ 355 Motor Vehicle
Product Liability LJ 360 Other Personal

LJ 371 Truth in Lending

LJ 380 Other Personal

LJ

Property Damage

LJ 385 Property Damage LJ

Product Liability

LJ

Injury

CIVIL RIGHTS
LJ 441 Voting
LJ 442 Employment LJ 443 Housing/
Accommodations LJ 444 We Ifare LJ 445 Amer. w/Disabilities
Employment

PRISONER PETITIONS LJ

LJ 510 Motions to Vacate LJ

Sentence

LJ

Habeas Corp11s:

LJ 530 General

LJ 535 Death Penalty

LJ 540 Mandamus & Other LJ

LJ 446 Amer. w/Disabilities -LJ Other

550 Civil Rights

LJ

61 0 Agriculture

LJ 422 Appeal28 USC 158

620 Other Food & Drug

LJ 423 Withdrawal

625 Drug Related Seizure

28 usc !57

of Property 21 USC 881

630 Liquor Laws

PROPERTY RIGHTS

640 R.R. & Truck

LJ 820 Copyrights

650 Airline Regs.

LJ 830 Patent

660 Occupational

LJ 840 Trademark

Safety/Health

690 Other

LABOR

SOCIAL SECURITY

710 Fair Labor Standards Act
720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations 730 Labor/Mgmt.Reporting

LJ 861 HIA (1395ff) LJ 862 Black Lung (923) LJ 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) LJ 864 SSID Title XVI

& Disclosure Act

LJ 865 RSI (405(g))

740 Railway Labor Act 790 Other Labor Litigation

FEDERAL TAX SUITS LJ 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff

791 Empl. Ret. Inc. Securit

or Defendant)

Act

LJ 871 IRS-Third Party

26 usc 7609

lMMlC.R. 'TlON

462 Naturalization Application

463 Habeas Corpus-Alien Detainee

LJ 440 Other Civil Rights

LJ 555 Prison Condition

LJ

465 Other Immigration Actions

LJ 5

LJ

LJ 6

0

("')

OTHER STATUTES

LJ 400 State Reapportionment
LJ 410 Antitrust LJ 430 Banks and Banking LJ 450 Commerce LJ 460 Deportation LJ 470 Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations LJ 480 Consumer Credit LJ 490 Cable/Sat TV LJ 810 Selective Service
LJ 850 Securities/Commodities/ Exchange
LJ 875 Customer Challenge 12 usc 3410
II 890 Other Statutory Actions LJ 891 Agricultural Acts LJ 892 Economic Stabilization Act LJ 893 Environmental Matters LJ 894 Energy Allocation Act LJ 895 Freedom of Information Act

LJ 900 Appeal of Fee Detennination Under Equal Access to Justice

LJ

950 Constitutionality of State Statutes

V. ORIGIN
.fJ 1 Original Proceeding

(Place an ..X, in One Box Only)

0 2 Removed from

0 3 Re-filed-

State Court

(see VI below)

Appeal to District

0

4 Reinstated or 0
Reopened

Transferred from
5 another district
(specify)

0 6 Multidistrict
Litigation

0

7

Judge from Magistrate

Judgment

VI. RELATED/RE-FILED (See instructions

CASE(S).

second page):

a) Re-filed Case 0 YES (J NO
JUDGE

b) Related Cases DYES ~NO
DOCKET NUMBER

Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing and Write a Brief Statement of Cause (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless

diversity):

VII. CAUSE OF ACTION Class Action for declaratory and injunctive relief related to applications for naturalization; 8 USC 1447(b); 5 TJSC 'i'i1: 'i TJSC 'i'i'i: 2R TJSC 11fll

D

LENGTH OF TRIAL via _5__ days estimated (for both sides to try entire case)

VIII. REQUESTED IN .{J CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT:

UNDERF.R.C.P. 23

DEMAND $

CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:

JURYDEMAND:

0 Yes 0 No

ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE & CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE

SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

,AA---:-

/ V FOR OFF~E ONLY

/ ' ( } -::::.,

0JU- ~ AMOUNT

RECEIPn-.--fJl(

(} IFP_ _ _ __

 
 Case 1:08-cv-21588-FAM Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2008 Page 1 of 28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 08-21588-CV-MORENO-TORRES

RAHEEL RANGOONWALA; JOSE CANAL; )

JESUS CONSTANTINI; LACHEZAR VANCHEV; )

TEODORA KARAGUEORGUIEVA; ANA

)

GONZALEZ; KULWANT KAUR; OUSSAMA )

KARAKI ; and PEDRO LARA, Plaintiffs-

)

Petitioners, individually and on behalf of all others )

similarly situated,

)

)

v.

)

)

)

LINDA M. SWACINA, District Director,

)

Miami District, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration )

Services (“USCIS”); KATHY REDMAN,

)

District Director, Tampa District, USCIS;

)

JONATHAN SCHARFEN, Acting Director,

)

USCIS; MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary,

)

U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”); )

ROBERT S. MUELLER, III, Director, Federal )

Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”); and MICHAEL )

B. MUKASEY, U.S. Attorney General,

)

)

Defendants.

)

__________________________________________/

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT CLASS ACTION

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. Plaintiffs-Petitioners (“Plaintiffs”) are lawful permanent residents of the

United States whose applications for naturalization (citizenship) have been delayed for nearly

2-6 years since they completed the citizenship interview. Each is a longtime resident of the

United States, meets all statutory eligibility requirements for citizenship, and seeks to pledge

allegiance to the United States and participate fully in civic society as a U.S. citizen,

including by voting in the upcoming presidential election.

Case 1:08-cv-21588-FAM Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2008 Page 2 of 28
2. Federal law requires that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) render a decision on naturalization applications within 120 days of the naturalization interview (or “examination”), see 8 U.S.C.§ 1447(b). The law was enacted in 1990 primarily for the purpose of decreasing backlogs in the naturalization process, and reducing waiting times for naturalization applicants. See H.R. Rep. No. 101-187, at 8 (1989); 135 Cong. Rec. H4539-02, H4542 (1989) (statement of Rep. Morrison). In addition, Congress has stated that immigration applications (such as a citizenship application) should be processed within 180 days from the date of filing, see 8 U.S.C. § 1571(b), and defines “backlog” as occurring where applications have been pending for more than 180 days, see 8 U.S.C. § 1572(1).
3. The named Plaintiffs’ applications, however, have been pending for 2-6 years since the naturalization interview, and there has still been no decision on their applications.
4. Federal law also provides that where applicants meet all legal requirements for naturalization, USCIS “shall grant” the application, see 8 C.F.R. § 335.3(a).
5. Defendants, however, have unlawfully and unreasonably delayed rendering a decision on Plaintiffs’ applications—long past the time periods prescribed by law—based on an FBI “name check” that is neither authorized nor required by law.
6. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful actions, Plaintiffs suffer the hardships of unreasonably and unlawfully delayed naturalization, including anxiety over their immigration status, prolonged family separations, ineligibility for certain employment opportunities or public benefits reserved for U.S. citizens, and exclusion from the political

Case 1:08-cv-21588-FAM Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2008 Page 3 of 28
process due to the inability to vote. Plaintiffs’ experiences are typical of more than 50,000 naturalization applicants nationally whose applications have been unlawfully and unreasonably delayed due to FBI name checks.
7. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated within the Southern District of Florida, therefore respectfully request that the Court certify the proposed class, declare that Defendants’ actions violate federal law, and require Defendants to complete the class members’ name checks and adjudicate their applications for citizenship within 90 days.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 8. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) (jurisdiction to adjudicate naturalization applications delayed more than 120 days since the interview); 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question); 28 U.S.C. § 2201 (Declaratory Judgment Act); 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (mandamus); and 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (All Writs Act). 9. Venue is proper in the Southern District of Florida pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e). Plaintiffs sue Defendants in their official capacities as officers and employees of the United States, and Plaintiffs reside in the Southern District of Florida. A substantial part of the events giving rise to this Complaint occurred within this District, in that Plaintiffs’ applications for naturalization are pending in USCIS Field Offices within the Southern District of Florida. Venue is also proper in this District pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), which provides that a petition for review of a naturalization application shall be filed in the district where the applicant resides.

Case 1:08-cv-21588-FAM Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2008 Page 4 of 28
PARTIES Named Plaintiffs
10. Named Plaintiffs and proposed class representatives RAHEEL RANGOONWALA, JOSE CANAL, JESUS CONSTANTINI, LACHEZAR VANCHEV, TEODORA KARAGUEORGUIEVA, ANA GONZALEZ, KULWANT KAUR, OUSSAMA KARAKI , and PEDRO LARA, are lawful permanent residents of the United States who meet all statutory requirements for naturalization, including having undergone the naturalization interview more than 120 days ago. The named Plaintiffs reside in the Southern District of Florida, and their citizenship applications are pending in the Southern District of Florida. All have been told or have reason to believe that their applications have been delayed due to the name check process. Defendants
11. Defendant LINDA M. SWACINA is District Director of the Miami District of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). Ms. Swacina is responsible for applications for naturalization pending in the Miami District. She is sued in her official capacity.
12. Defendant KATHY REDMAN is Tampa Field Office Director for USCIS, and believed to be Director of the Tampa District Office for USCIS. Ms. Redman is responsible for applications for naturalization pending in the Tampa District, which includes the West Palm Beach Field Office. Ms. Redman is sued in her official capacity.
13. Defendant JONATHAN SCHARFEN is Acting Director of USCIS. Mr. Scharfen is responsible for processing and adjudicating all applications for naturalization

Case 1:08-cv-21588-FAM Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2008 Page 5 of 28
submitted to USCIS. As Acting Director of USCIS, Mr. Scharfen is also responsible for the scope and nature of the background checks conducted for naturalization applications, which are defined by USCIS by regulation or otherwise. Mr. Scharfen is sued in his official capacity.
14. Defendant MICHAEL CHERTOFF is Director of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), which encompasses USCIS. Mr. Chertoff is ultimately responsible for the administration of all immigration and naturalization laws, including the processing and adjudication of applications for naturalization. He is sued in his official capacity.
15. Defendant ROBERT S. MUELLER, III, is Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”). Mr. Mueller is ultimately responsible for the processing of criminal background checks and the “name checks” which are required by USCIS during the naturalization process. He is sued in his official capacity.
16. Defendant MICHAEL B. MUKASEY is Attorney General of the United States. He is the head of the U.S. Department of Justice, which encompasses the FBI. Mr. Mukasey is also jointly responsible with Mr. Chertoff for enforcing immigration laws. Mr. Mukasey is sued in his official capacity.
THE NATURALIZATION PROCESS 17. An individual is eligible to become a naturalized citizen of the United States if he or she has been a lawful permanent resident of the United States for the past five (5) years (or three (3) years if the applicant has been married to a U.S. citizen throughout that time), and is “a person of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution

Case 1:08-cv-21588-FAM Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2008 Page 6 of 28
of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1427(a).
18. A lawful permanent resident may apply for citizenship by filing a detailed N–400 application with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), formerly the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). (In 2002, the INS was abolished with passage of the Homeland Security Act, Pub. L. No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (2002), and its responsibilities were transferred to departments within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”). Within DHS, USCIS assumed responsibility for adjudicating applications for naturalization, including background checks associated with those applications.)
19. In 1997, Congress passed an appropriations measure that prohibited the then-INS from adjudicating any application for naturalization until the INS “received confirmation from the Federal Bureau of Investigation that a full criminal background check has been completed.” Pub.L. 105-119, Tit. I, Nov. 26, 2007, 111 Stat. 2448. In 1998, the then-INS promulgated regulations to implement the criminal background check requirement. See 8 C.F.R. § 335.2(b). Thus, after the application has been filed, USCIS requires each applicant to submit fingerprints to the FBI for the purpose of conducting a criminal background check. The criminal background check is usually completed within days, if not hours.
20. After USCIS has received the completed results of the criminal background check, USCIS schedules the applicant for a naturalization interview (or “examination”). In 1998, the INS promulgated regulations stating that “[t]he Service will notify applicants for naturalization to appear before a Service officer for initial examination

Case 1:08-cv-21588-FAM Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2008 Page 7 of 28
on the naturalization application only after the Service has received a definitive response from the Federal Bureau of Investigation that a full criminal background check of an applicant has been completed.” 8 C.F.R. § 335.2(b).
21. A “definitive response” from the FBI is defined as: “(1) Confirmation from the Federal Bureau of Investigation that an applicant does not have an administrative or a criminal record; (2) Confirmation from the Federal Bureau of Investigation that an applicant has an administrative or a criminal record; or (3) Confirmation from the Federal Bureau of Investigation that two properly prepared fingerprint cards (Form FD-258) have been determined unclassifiable for the purpose of conducting a criminal background check and have been rejected.” 8 C.F.R. § 335.2(b).
22. At the naturalization interview (or “examination”), the applicant meets with a USCIS officer, is tested in Civics and English language requirements, unless those are waived, and must be advised in writing of any deficiencies in the application. 8 C.F.R. § 335.3(b).
23. Federal law requires a decision on the application within 120 days of the naturalization interview (or “examination”). Pursuant to federal regulations, “A decision to grant or deny the application shall be made at the time of the initial examination or within 120-days after the date of the initial examination of the applicant for naturalization under § 335.2. The applicant shall be notified that the application has been granted or denied and, if the application has been granted, of the procedures to be followed for the administration of the oath of allegiance pursuant to part 337 of this chapter.” 8 C.F.R. § 335.3(a) (emphasis added).

Case 1:08-cv-21588-FAM Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2008 Page 8 of 28
24. Federal law also requires that naturalization be granted to any applicant who complies with all legal requirements. Federal regulations expressly provide: “The Service officer shall grant the application if the applicant has complied with all requirements for naturalization under this chapter.” 8 C.F.R. § 335.3(a) (emphasis added). In other words, where the requirements are met, naturalization is mandatory not discretionary.
25. Once the application is granted, the applicant must take an oath of allegiance before a USCIS officer or a judge to be sworn in as a U.S. citizen.
THE FBI NAME CHECK 26. Federal law defines the required “criminal background check” to include only a fingerprint records check. 8 C.F.R. § 335.2(b). 27. Starting in 2002, however, USCIS dramatically altered the naturalization process by requiring expansive FBI “name checks” for all naturalization applicants, even though no FBI name check is required or authorized by law. FBI name checks have caused extraordinary, unlawful and unreasonable delays in the adjudication of applications for naturalization. USCIS implemented the FBI name checks without providing notice to the public, and without promulgating any regulations. 28. On information and belief, before 2002 USCIS may have also requested limited FBI name checks only to determine whether a citizenship applicant was the subject of an FBI investigation. 29. In 2002, however, USCIS dramatically expanded the FBI “name checks” it requires for naturalization applicants, even though there was no change in the law requiring or authorizing the name check or its expansion. Rather than simply search to

Case 1:08-cv-21588-FAM Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2008 Page 9 of 28
determine whether an applicant is the subject of an FBI investigation, USCIS implemented an expanded FBI name to include a search for any reference to the applicant’s name (or to a similar name, or even to a common “fragment” of a name) in any type of file to which the FBI has access, in every case, and for an indefinite period of time.
30. On information and belief, name checks that include a search for all “references” can turn up a “hit” if the applicant (or anyone with a similar name, or a common “fragment” of a name) appears in any type of record (including, for example, personnel files that list the name of a job applicant or reference) and for any reason (including, for example, as someone who has applied for security clearances for professional reasons, or has been the witness to—or victim of—a crime) at any time in the past. Any such “hit” may then prompt further research by the FBI, which FBI has said can cause the agency to manually search paper records that pre-date 1995 and have to be retrieved from any one of about 265 physical locations around the country.
31. As a result, innocent citizenship applicants who have cleared criminal background checks and are not the subject of any FBI investigation can have their applications significantly delayed simply on the basis of a “hit” that has absolutely no bearing on their eligibility for citizenship, and may not even relate to the citizenship applicant him- or herself, but rather to someone with a similar name.
32. Name checks are not required or authorized by law. Yet, USCIS refuses to adjudicate applications for naturalization until it completes this name check process, even when doing so results in years of delay for applicants who meet every statutory requirement for citizenship.

Case 1:08-cv-21588-FAM Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2008 Page 10 of 28
33. In addition to delays caused by the FBI name check itself, USCIS causes
additional delays by failing to timely complete its review of name check results after
receiving them from the FBI.
34. In 2006 and 2007, USCIS’ Ombudsman (a Congressionally-mandated
independent office of the Department of Homeland Security) provided annual reports to
Congress describing the systemic delays caused by FBI name checks, and questioning their
value. See USCIS Ombudsman Annual Report 2006, available at
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOmbudsman_AnnualReport_2006.pdf; and
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOMB_Annual_Report_2007.pdf .
35. As early as 2006, the USCIS Ombudsman reported that:
FBI name checks, one of the security screening tools used by USCIS, significantly delay adjudication of immigration benefits for many customers, hinder backlog reductions efforts, and may not achieve their intended national security objectives.
36. The USCIS Ombudsman further stated that:
The name checks are not sought by the FBI as part of ongoing investigations or from a need to learn more about an individual because of any threat or risk perceived by the FBI. Instead, the name checks are a fee-for-service that the FBI provides to USCIS at its request. Moreover, the FBI does not record any additional information about the names USCIS submits and does not routinely take any further action. Instead, the FBI reviews its files much like a credit reporting entity would verify and report on information to commercial entities requesting credit validations.
(emphasis in original).
37. In 2007, the USCIS Ombudsman again reported to Congress that:
FBI name checks, one of several security screening tools used by USCIS, continue to significantly delay adjudication of immigration benefits for many customers, hinder backlog reductions efforts, and may not achieve their

Case 1:08-cv-21588-FAM Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2008 Page 11 of 28
intended national security objectives.
38. In 2007, the USCIS Ombudsman added that:
FBI name checks may be the single biggest obstacle to the timely and efficient delivery of immigration benefits. The problem of long-pending FBI name check cases worsened during the reporting period.
(emphasis in original).
39. The USCIS Ombudsman further reported that:
The Ombudsman agrees with the assessment of many case workers and supervisors at USCIS field offices and service centers that the FBI name check process has limited value to public safety or national security, especially because in almost every case the applicant is in the United States during the name check process, living or working without restriction.
(emphasis added).
40. After years of studying the FBI name check problem, the USCIS
Ombudsman even reported that:
To date, the Ombudsman has been unable to ascertain from USCIS the total number of actual problem cases that the agency discovered exclusively as a result of the FBI name check. The Ombudsman understands that most, if not all, of the problem cases which would result in an eventual denial of benefits also can be revealed by the other more efficient, automated criminal and security checks that USCIS initiates.
(emphasis added).
41. The USCIS Ombudsman concluded that:
FBI name checks may be the single biggest obstacle to the timely and efficient delivery of immigration benefits.
(emphasis added).
42. The USCIS-imposed FBI “name checks” that include a search for all
“references” thus cause extraordinary and unreasonable delays in the processing of

Case 1:08-cv-21588-FAM Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2008 Page 12 of 28
naturalization applications, with no tangible benefit offered in return. 43. USCIS’ “name check” policy for all naturalization applications was
implemented rashly by USCIS without providing notice to, or soliciting comment from, the public.
44. The “name check” is not required or authorized by law. 45. USCIS has been, and is, aware of the unreasonableness of its name check pattern and practice. 46. In addition, USCIS has been, and is, aware of the unreasonable delays its name check pattern and practice causes applicants for naturalization. 47. USCIS and FBI cause additional delay by operating under the belief that there is absolutely no “deadline” for completing name checks, and the review thereof. 48. USCIS also causes additional delay by failing to complete its review of FBI name check results within a reasonable amount of time after receiving them. 49. In conducting, prioritizing, and completing name checks in conjunction with applications for naturalization, FBI acts at the direction of USCIS. 50. Part of the fees that naturalization applicants are required to pay for their applications to be processed is paid to FBI (through USCIS) for the purpose of completing name checks.
NAMED PLAINTIFFS Plaintiff RAHEEL RANGOONWALA
51. Plaintiff RAHEEL RANGOONWALA, a Pakistani national, has been a lawful permanent resident of the United States for nearly ten (10) years. Mr. Rangoonwala resides

Case 1:08-cv-21588-FAM Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2008 Page 13 of 28
in Coconut Creek, and works at a convenience store. Mr. Rangoonwala is married, but his wife remains in Pakistan until they can be reunited in the United States.
52. Mr. Rangoonwala applied for naturalization on October 31, 2003, and underwent his naturalization interview on or about January 3, 2005, passing the civics and language requirements. For more than three (3) years since the interview, however, Mr. Rangoonwala has not received any decision on his application.
53. Mr. Rangoonwala has suffered and continues to suffer prejudice from the unreasonable delay of his naturalization. While he awaits an adjudication on his application, Mr. Rangoonwala is deprived of the substantial and unique rights and duties of U.S. citizenship, including the ability to petition for prompt reunification with his wife as a U.S. citizen, and the right to vote in the upcoming presidential election. Plaintiff JOSE CANAL
54. Plaintiff JOSE CANAL, a Cuban national, has been a lawful permanent resident of the United States for more than twenty (20) years. He is retired, and lives with his U.S. citizen wife in Hialeah.
55. Mr. Canal applied for citizenship on May 15, 2002, and passed the citizenship interview on February 26, 2003. Yet for more than five (5) years since the date of his interview, he has not received any decision on his application.
56. Mr. Canal has suffered and continues to suffer prejudice from the unreasonable delay of his naturalization. While he awaits an adjudication on his application, Mr. Canal is deprived of the substantial and unique rights and duties of U.S. citizenship, including the right to vote in the upcoming presidential election.

Case 1:08-cv-21588-FAM Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2008 Page 14 of 28
Plaintiff JESUS CONSTANTINI 57. Plaintiff JESUS CONSTANTINI, a Peruvian national, has been a lawful
permanent resident of the United States for more than twelve (12) years. He resides in North Miami Beach with his wife.
58. Mr. Constantini applied for citizenship on October 23, 2001, and passed the citizenship test on June 6, 2002. Yet for more than six (6) years since his naturalization interview, he has not received any decision on his application.
59. Mr. Constantini has suffered and continues to suffer prejudice from the unreasonable delay of his naturalization. While he awaits an adjudication on his application, Mr. Constantini is deprived of the substantial and unique rights and duties of U.S. citizenship, including the right to vote in the upcoming presidential election. Plaintiff LACHEZAR VANCHEV
60. Plaintiff LACHEZAR VANCHEV, a Bulgarian national, has been a lawful permanent resident of the United States for more than eight (8) years. He is an attorney, and resides in Tamarac with his wife.
61. Mr. Vanchev applied for citizenship on April 11, 2005, and passed the citizenship interview on December 12, 2005. Yet for more than two (2) years since the interview, he has not received any decision on his application.
62. Mr. Vanchev has suffered and continues to suffer prejudice from the unreasonable delay of his naturalization. While he awaits an adjudication on his application, Mr. Vanchev is deprived of the substantial and unique rights and duties of U.S. citizenship, including the right to vote in the upcoming presidential election.

Case 1:08-cv-21588-FAM Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2008 Page 15 of 28
Plaintiff TEODORA KARAGUEORGUIEVA 63. Plaintiff TEODORA KARAGUEORGUIEVA, a Bulgarian national,
has been a lawful permanent resident of the United States for more than eight (8) years. She works for a local company, and resides in Tamarac with her husband.
64. Ms. Karagueorguieva applied for citizenship on April 11, 2005, and passed the citizenship interview on December 12, 2005. Yet for more than two (2) years since the interview, she has not received any decision on her application.
65. Ms. Karagueorguieva has suffered and continues to suffer prejudice from the unreasonable delay of her naturalization. While she awaits an adjudication on her application, Ms. Karagueorguieva is deprived of the substantial and unique rights and duties of U.S. citizenship, including the right to vote in the upcoming presidential election. Plaintiff ANA GONZALEZ
66. Plaintiff ANA GONZALEZ, a Cuban national, has been a lawful permanent resident of the United States for twelve (12) years. She is a teacher, and resides in Hollywood with her son.
67. Ms. Gonzalez applied for citizenship on March 25, 2004, and passed the citizenship interview on January 25, 2005. Yet for more than three (3) years since the interview, she has not received any decision on her application.
68. Ms. Gonzalez has suffered and continues to suffer prejudice from the unreasonable delay of her naturalization. While she awaits an adjudication on her application, Ms. Gonzalez is deprived of the substantial and unique rights and duties of U.S. citizenship, including professional opportunities and the right to vote in the upcoming

Case 1:08-cv-21588-FAM Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2008 Page 16 of 28
presidential election. Plaintiff KULWANT KAUR
69. Plaintiff KULWANT KAUR, an Indian national, has been a lawful permanent resident of the United States for more than nine (9) years. She resides in Hialeah.
70. Ms. Kaur applied for citizenship on January 12, 2004, and passed the citizenship interview on July 21, 2004. Yet for more than four (4) years since the interview, she has not received any decision on her application.
71. Ms. Kaur has suffered and continues to suffer prejudice from the unreasonable delay of her naturalization. While she awaits an adjudication on her application, Ms. Kaur is deprived of the substantial and unique rights and duties of U.S. citizenship, including the right to vote in the upcoming presidential election. Plaintiff OUSSAMA KARAKI
72. Plaintiff OUSSAMA KARAKI, a Lebanese national, has been a lawful permanent resident of the United States for several years.
73. Mr. Karaki passed the citizenship interview on January 12, 2006. Yet for more than two (2) years since his citizenship interview, he has not received any decision on his application.
74. Mr. Karaki has suffered and continues to suffer prejudice from the unreasonable delay of his naturalization. While he awaits an adjudication on his application, Mr. Karaki is deprived of the substantial and unique rights and duties of U.S. citizenship, including the right to vote in the upcoming presidential election.

Case 1:08-cv-21588-FAM Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2008 Page 17 of 28
Plaintiff PEDRO LARA 75. Plaintiff PEDRO LARA, a Nicaraguan national, has been a lawful permanent
resident of the United States for more than sixteen (16) years. He resides in Miami, with his U.S. citizen wife and their son.
76. Mr. Lara applied for citizenship on August 26, 2002, and passed the citizenship interview on June 13, 2003. Yet for more than five (5) years since his interview, he has not received any decision in his case.
77. Mr. Lara has suffered and continues to suffer prejudice from the unreasonable delay of his naturalization. While he awaits an adjudication on his application, Mr. Lara is deprived of the substantial and unique rights and duties of U.S. citizenship, including the right to vote in the upcoming presidential election.
DEFENDANTS’ UNLAWFUL POLICIES AND PRACTICES 78. On information and belief, Defendants SWACINA, REDMAN, SCHARFEN and CHERTOFF have a policy, pattern and practice of failing to adjudicate the naturalization applications of the proposed plaintiff class within 120 days of the naturalization examination, in disregard of statutory deadlines, because of the FBI name check process. 79. On information and belief, Defendants SWACINA, REDMAN, SCHARFEN and CHERTOFF have a policy, pattern and practice of unlawfully withholding and unreasonably delaying adjudication of the naturalization applications of the proposed plaintiff class, in disregard of statutory deadlines, because of the FBI name check process.

Case 1:08-cv-21588-FAM Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2008 Page 18 of 28
80. On information and belief, Defendants SWACINA, REDMAN, SCHARFEN and CHERTOFF have a policy, pattern and practice of unlawfully requiring completed name checks before adjudicating the naturalization applications of the proposed plaintiff class, despite having no statutory or regulatory authorization for such name checks.
81. On information and belief, Defendants SCHARFEN and CHERTOFF unlawfully implemented name checks as a prerequisite to naturalization without public notice and without providing a period for public comment. Requiring name checks as a prerequisite to naturalization effected a substantive change in existing law resulting in undue hardship and burden to the proposed plaintiff class.
82. On information and belief, Defendants SWACINA, REDMAN, SCHARFEN and CHERTOFF have a policy, pattern and practice of unlawfully withholding and unreasonably delaying adjudication of the proposed plaintiffs class’s applications for naturalization by failing to promptly act on applications after they receive name check results from the FBI.
83. On information and belief, Defendants SWACINA, REDMAN, SCHARFEN and CHERTOFF have a policy, pattern and practice of failing to take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure that name checks are completed within a reasonable time, and to complete the adjudication of applications for naturalization in a lawful and timely fashion after receiving name check results, despite being on notice of the problem for years.
84. On information and belief, Defendants MUELLER and MUKASEY have a policy, pattern and practice of unreasonably and unlawfully delaying completion of FBI name

Case 1:08-cv-21588-FAM Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2008 Page 19 of 28
checks with the full knowledge that USCIS will not adjudicate the naturalization applications of the proposed plaintiff class until the name checks are completed.
85. On information and belief, Defendants MUELLER and MUKASEY have a policy, pattern and practice of failing to timely complete the name checks of the proposed plaintiff class, operating on the belief that they is absolutely no “deadline” or other temporal limitation to complete them.
86. As a result of Defendants’ policies, practices, actions and omissions, the proposed plaintiff class has suffered injury, in that they have been unlawfully denied the rights and benefits of U.S. citizenship
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 87. Pursuant to Rule 23, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated. The proposed plaintiff class consists of: All lawful permanent residents of the United States residing in the Southern District of Florida who have submitted naturalization applications to USCIS but whose naturalization applications have not been determined within 120 days of the date of their initial examination due to the pendency of the “name check” process. 88. The requirements of Rule 23(a) are met in that the members of the proposed plaintiff class are so numerous that joinder is impracticable, there are questions of law and fact common to all members of the proposed plaintiff class, the claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of those of the proposed plaintiff class members, and the named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the proposed plaintiff class.

Case 1:08-cv-21588-FAM Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2008 Page 20 of 28
89. A class action is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(1)(A) because inconsistent adjudications about the lawfulness or reasonableness of delays caused by the name check process, or about the lawfulness of the name check process, would establish incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants.
90. A class action is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(2) because Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, by unlawfully and unreasonably delaying the adjudication of the proposed class members’ naturalization applications based on the pendency of the name check process; by unlawfully and unreasonably delaying completion of proposed class members’ name checks; and by unlawfully requiring a completed name check before adjudicating the proposed class members’ applications for naturalization.
91. On information and belief, approximately 58,000 naturalization applications are delayed nationally pending completion of the name checks. Undersigned counsel are aware of dozens of lawsuits recently brought in the Southern District of Florida by persons similarly situated to plaintiffs seeking adjudication of their delayed applications. Undersigned counsel are unaware of the exact number of proposed class members, but believe that there are at least several hundred individuals similarly situated to Plaintiffs residing in this judicial district. The class should be manageable, however, due to USCIS’ announced practice since 2006 not to schedule citizenship interviews until after the FBI name checks are completed. Because Defendants are best able to determine the exact number of proposed class members, undersigned counsel will request leave to serve Defendants with discovery requests targeted to this issue.

Case 1:08-cv-21588-FAM Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2008 Page 21 of 28
92. There are questions of law and fact common to the proposed class that predominate over any questions affecting only the individually named Plaintiffs, including (1) whether Defendants’ failure to render a decision on the naturalization applications of the proposed class within 120 days of the date of the naturalization examination, due to name check delays, violates federal law; (2) whether Defendants’ requiring a name check as a prerequisite to naturalization violates the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act; and (3) whether Defendants’ unlawful withholding and unreasonable delay in completing name checks, and in processing name check results, with the full knowledge that USCIS requires the completion of such name checks before rending a decision on the proposed plaintiff class’s naturalization applications, violates the Administrative Procedure Act.
93. The named Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the proposed class members. Like the named Plaintiffs, all proposed class members have not had their naturalization applications determined within the statutorily-mandated 120-day period following their naturalization examinations, have been deprived of notice and an opportunity to comment on the name check requirement, and have had a decision on their naturalization applications unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed due to the name check process.
94. Like the named Plaintiffs, all proposed class members are suffering injuries from the unlawful delay of their naturalization applications, including the inability to participate in civic society by voting or serving on juries, prolonged family separations due to the inability to sponsor immediate relatives for lawful permanent resident status as U.S. citizens, the inability to apply for employment opportunities or public benefits that require

Case 1:08-cv-21588-FAM Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2008 Page 22 of 28
U.S. citizenship, and the stigma of an uncertain status in the country they have made their home.
95. The named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests of all members of the proposed class because they seek relief on behalf of the class as a whole and have no interest antagonistic to other members of the class. The named Plaintiffs are represented by pro bono counsel, the Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center, who have expertise in immigration law and class action litigation.
96. The requirements of Rule 23(b)(2) are also met because Defendants acted (or failed to act) in an unlawful manner applicable to all proposed plaintiff class members in failing to render a decision on the proposed plaintiff class members’ naturalization applications within the statutorily-mandated 120-day period, unlawfully imposing a name check requirement without notice or comment, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act; and otherwise unlawfully withholding and unreasonably delaying agency actions, thereby making appropriate final relief with respect to the class as a whole.
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ALLEGATIONS 97. An actual and substantial controversy exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants as to their respective legal rights and duties. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants’ actions violate Plaintiffs’ rights and the rights of proposed class members. Defendants contend the opposite. 98. Defendants’ failure to timely adjudicate Plaintiffs’ naturalization applications, and the applications of proposed class members, has caused and will continue to cause irreparable injury to Plaintiffs and the proposed class members. Plaintiffs have no

Case 1:08-cv-21588-FAM Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2008 Page 23 of 28
plain, speedy and adequate remedy at law. CAUSES OF ACTION
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF RIGHT TO JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF APPLICATION FOR
NATURALIZATION PURSUANT TO 8 U.S.C. §1447(b) [By Plaintiffs Against USCIS Defendants Swacina, Redman, Scharfen and Chertoff]
99. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 98 above are repeated and incorporated as though fully set forth herein.
100. Because Defendants have unlawfully failed to adjudicate the naturalization applications of the named Plaintiffs and proposed class members within 120 days of the naturalization examination, each named Plaintiff and proposed class member is entitled to a hearing on his or her naturalization application by the Court under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b).
101. This Court should grant the named Plaintiffs’ and proposed class members’ naturalization applications pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), because each meets all requirements for naturalization and federal law therefore requires that the application be granted.
102. In the alternative, this Court should remand the applications to USCIS with specific instructions to complete name checks and adjudicate the applications within 90 days, under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b).

Case 1:08-cv-21588-FAM Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2008 Page 24 of 28
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF UNREASONABLE DELAY IN VIOLATION OF
THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT [By Plaintiffs Against USCIS Defendants and FBI Defendants] 103. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 though 98 above are repeated and incorporated as though fully set forth herein. 104. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires all administrative agencies to conclude matters presented to them “within a reasonable time.” 5 U.S.C. § 555(b). A district court reviewing agency action may “compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(1). “Agency action” includes, in relevant part, “an agency rule, order, license, sanction, relief, or the equivalent or denial thereof, or failure to act.” 5 U.S.C. § 551(13). 105. The failure of Defendants SWACINA, REDMAN, SCHARFEN and CHERTOFF to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ applications for naturalization within 120 days of their naturalization examinations violates the APA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 555(b) and 706. 106. The failure of Defendants MUKASEY and MUELLER to complete name checks within a reasonable time, particularly with the full knowledge that USCIS requires completion of such name checks for adjudicating the named Plaintiffs’ and proposed class members’s applications for naturalization, violates the APA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 555(b), 706. 107. The failure of Defendants SWACINA, REDMAN, SCHARFEN and CHERTOFF to ensure that the name checks of the named Plaintiffs and the proposed class members are promptly completed, and failure to process name check results received from the FBI within a reasonable time, violates the APA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 555(b) and 706.

Case 1:08-cv-21588-FAM Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2008 Page 25 of 28
108. As a result of Defendants’ actions, named Plaintiffs and the proposed class members have suffered and continue to suffer injury. Declaratory and injunctive relief are therefore warranted.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF FAILURE TO FOLLOW NOTICE-AND-COMMENT REQUIREMENTS
OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT [By Plaintiffs Against USCIS Defendants Swacina, Redman, Scharfen and Chertoff]
109. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 though 98 above are repeated and incorporated as though fully set forth herein.
110. By regulation, USCIS is required to receive the result of an FBI criminal background check before it may grant a naturalization application. 8 C.F.R. § 335.2(b). USCIS, however, has added a new substantive requirement to the naturalization process, known as a name check, that is neither authorized nor required by law. The name check constitutes a substantive rule that departs from prior policy and practice.
111. Defendants Swacina, Redman, Scharfen and Chertoff implemented the “name check” requirement without public notice or providing a period for public comment, even though the name check requirement has an adverse impact on individuals whose naturalization applications are delayed as a result.
112. The failure to provide a notice-and-comment period before implementing the name check requirement violates the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 553.
113. As a result of Defendants’ actions, the named Plaintiffs and proposed plaintiff class members have suffered and continue to suffer injury. Declaratory and injunctive relief are therefore warranted.

Case 1:08-cv-21588-FAM Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2008 Page 26 of 28
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that the Court: A. Assume jurisdiction over the matter; B. Certify this case as a class action lawsuit, as proposed herein; C. Grant the named Plaintiffs and proposed class members’ applications for naturalization pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b); D. In the alternative, order Defendants to complete the named Plaintiffs’ and proposed class members’ name checks within 60 days, and order Defendants to promptly render a decision on the naturalization applications within 30 days thereafter; E. Issue a declaratory judgment holding unlawful (1) the failure of Defendants SWACINA, REDMAN, SCHARFEN and CHERTOFF to adjudicate applications for naturalization within 120 days of the date of the naturalization interview; (2) the failure of Defendants MUKASEY and MUELLER to complete name checks within a reasonable time; (3) the failure of Defendants to take all necessary steps to ensure that name checks are completed within a reasonable time; (4) the failure of Defendants SWACINA, REDMAN, SCHARFEN and CHERTOFF to process name check results received from the FBI within a reasonable time; and (5) the failure of Defendants to take all necessary steps to assure that applications for naturalization are adjudicated within 120 days of the date of the naturalization interview as required by law; F. Declare void, set aside and enjoin the name check process for failure to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act’s notice-and-comment requirement; G. Enjoin Defendants’ unlawful conduct;

Case 1:08-cv-21588-FAM Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2008 Page 27 of 28
H. Award reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to the Equal Access to
Justice Act, 5 U.S.C. § 504 and 28 U.S.C. § 2412; and
I. Grant any and all further relief this Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
s/Tania Galloni Tania Galloni (Fla. Bar No: 619221) Email: tgalloni@fiacfla.org Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center 3000 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 400 Miami, FL 33137 Tel: (305) 573-1106, ext. 1080 Fax: (305) 576-6273
Mary M. Gundrum (Fla. Bar. No. 937339) Email: mgundrum@fiacfla.org Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center 3000 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 400 Miami, FL 33137 Tel: (305) 573-1106, ext. 1020 Fax: (305) 576-6273
Cheryl Little (Fla. Bar No. 655678) Email: clittle@fiacfla.org Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center 3000 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 400 Miami, FL 33137 Tel: (305) 573-1106, ext. 1001 Fax: (305) 576-6273
Khurrum B. Wahid (Fla. Bar No. 178764) Email: khurrum@wvmlawfirm.com Wahid, Vizcaino and Maher 3191 Coral Way, Suite 406 Miami, FL 33145 Tel: (305) 444-4303 Fax: (305) 444-4302
Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Petitioners

Case 1:08-cv-21588-FAM Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2008 Page 28 of 28
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August 1, 2008 I electronically filed the foregoing document and attachment with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document and attachment is being served this day on all counsel of record via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF.
s/Tania Galloni Tania Galloni (Fla. Bar No: 619221)

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Miami Division
Case Number: 08-21588-CIV-MORENO
RAHEEL RANGOONWALA; JOSE CANAL; JESUS CONSTANTINI; LACHEZAR VANCHEV; TEODORA KARAGUEORGUIEVA; ANA GONZALEZ; KULWANT KAUR; OUSSAMA KARAKI; and PEDRO LARA, Plaintiffs-Petitioners, individually and behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
LINDA SWACINA, District Director, Miami District, US Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS"), KATHY REDMAN, District Director, Tampa District, USCIS; JONATHAN SCHARFEN, Acting Director, USCIS, MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary, U.s. Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"); ROBERT S. MUELLER, III, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"); and MICHAEL B. MUKASKEY, U.S. Attorney General,
Defendants. _____________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO REMAND, DENYING MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION, AND DENYING ALL OTHER MOTIONS AS MOOT
THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendants' Motion to Remand in Part and
Dismiss in Part (D.E. No. 11), filed on August 21, 2008, and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class
Certification (D.E. No. 9), filed on August 4, 2008.
THE COURT has considered the parties’ motions, responses, pertinent portions of the record,
and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is

ADJUDGED that: 1. This case is remanded to United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
("USCIS") pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) for a decision within 90 days on all named Plaintiffs' naturalization applications that are still pending, with leave for Plaintiffs to refile this action should USCIS fail to comply with this order. 2. Plaintiffs Jose Canal, Jesus Constantini, Oussama Karaki, and Ana Gonzalez are DISMISSED from this action.1 Accordingly, the Court will not discuss the merits of their claims. 3. Plaintiffs’ remaining claims under the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) are DISMISSED in light of the Court's decision to remand the case to USCIS. 4. Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is DENIED. 5. This case is CLOSED and all other pending motions are DENIED as MOOT.
BACKGROUND Plaintiffs are lawful permanent residents of the United States whose naturalization applications have been delayed between 3-5 years since they completed their citizenship interviews. Plaintiffs have brought a purported class action alleging unlawful delay in the adjudication of their naturalization applications in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) and 5 U.S.C. § 555(b) et seq of the APA. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants violated the APA's notice-and-comment requirements. 5 U.S.C. § 553.
1
According to the parties' submissions, Plaintiffs Jose Canal, Jesus Constantini, and Oussama Karaki are naturalized citizens as of the date of this order. See Pl. Mot. for Leave to File Amended Compl., at n.1. The Court also notes that Plaintiff Ana Gonzalez has since relocated to Montana, and she therefore cannot file suit pursuant to § 1447(b) in this district. See Id., at n.2. Rather, she can file suit in the District of Montana. See 8. U.S.C. § 1447(b).
-2-

Plaintiff Raheel Rangoonwala is a Pakistani national and has been a lawful permanent resident of the United States for almost ten years. Mr. Rangoonwala applied for naturalization on October 31, 2003 and appeared for his naturalization interview on or about January 3, 2005. Mr. Rangoonwala is still awaiting a decision on his application more than three years after his interview.
Plaintiffs Lachezar Vanchev and Teodora Karagueorguieva are Bulgarian nationals and have been lawful permanent residents of the United States for more than eight years. Both Mr. Vanchev and Ms. Karagueorguieva applied for citizenship on April 11, 2005 and appeared for their respective interviews on December 12, 2005. To date, they still have not received a decision on their applications.
Plaintiff Kulwan Kaur is an Indian national and has been a lawful permanent resident of the United States for more than nine years. Ms. Kaur applied for citizenship on January 12, 2004 and passed her citizenship interview on July 21, 2004. Ms. Kaur is still awaiting a decision on her application more than four years after her interview.
Finally, Plaintiff Pedro Lara is a Nicaraguan national and has been a lawful permanent resident of the United States for more than sixteen years. Mr. Lara applied for citizenship on August 23, 2002, and appeared for his interview on June 13, 2003. To date, Mr. Lara still has not received a decision on his application.
PLAINTIFFS’ 1447(b) CLAIM Plaintiffs allege that their naturalization applications were stalled due to an unauthorized and unlawful FBI "name check" above and beyond the criminal background check that is contemplated by 8 C.F.R. § 335.2(b). Plaintiffs ask the Court to adjudicate their naturalization claims pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), or alternatively, to remand the applications to USCIS with specific instructions
-3-

to adjudicate the applications within 90 days. Defendants counter that the FBI has completed its name checks for all named plaintiffs to the amended complaint, and ask the Court to remand all pending naturalization applications to USCIS for final disposition. I. LEGAL STANDARD
Plaintiffs bring their first claim under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), which provides the following: If there is a failure to make a determination under section 335 [8 U.S.C. § 1447] before the end of the 120-day period after the date on which the examination is conducted under this section the applicant may apply to the United States district court for the district in which the applicant resides for a hearing on the matter. Such court has jurisdiction over the matter and may either determine the matter or remand the matter, with appropriate instructions, to the Service to determine the matter.
8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). Both sides acknowledge that USCIS failed to make a decision within the 120-day period. At issue is the remedy to redress Plaintiffs’ injury. II. ANALYSIS
Plaintiffs ask the Court to adjudicate their naturalization applications because to date, USCIS has not done so. While the statute gives the Court such discretion, the Court elects, again, to follow the majority of courts that have remanded these cases back to USCIS. See e.g. Chahoud v. Swacina, No. 07-23393-CIV-MORENO (S.D. Fla. June 6, 2008); Rodriguez v. Gonzales, No. 07-20022-CIVUNGARO, slip op. at 4 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 22, 2006); Hussein v. Gonzales, 474 F. Supp. 2d 1265, 126869 (M.D. Fla. 2007). USCIS is far better-equipped than the Court to evaluate the merits of the naturalization application, and the Court opts not to disturb this Agency’s primary function to do so. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 17 (2002) (“The agency can bring its expertise to bear on the matter; it can evaluate the evidence; . . . it can, through informed discussion and analysis, help a court later determine whether its decision exceeds the leeway that the law provides.”).
-4-

Along with the Court’s decision to remand this action back to USCIS, the Court reiterates its previous call to USCIS stressing the importance of complying with the 120-day rule mandated by § 1447(b). See Chahoud, No. 07-23393, at 3. Plaintiffs have waited between three and five years for a decision from USCIS, even after passing the naturalization interview. Plaintiffs are entitled to a final decision. The Court hereby orders USCIS to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ naturalization applications within 90 days of the date of this order.
PLAINTIFFS’ APA CLAIMS Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants violated 5 U.S.C. § 555(b) et seq. and 5 U.S.C. § 553 of the APA. Specifically, Plaintiffs contend that Defendants’ failure to adjudicate their naturalization applications within 120 days of their naturalization interviews violates the APA’s requirement that all administrative agencies conclude matters presented to them “within a reasonable time.” 5 U.S.C. § 555(b). Second, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants unlawfully instituted the FBI name check process without first providing a “notice-and-comment” period, in violation of 5 U.S.C. § 553. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, apparently separate from Plaintiffs’ § 1447(b) claim. The Court finds that § 1447(b) provides an adequate remedy to redress Plaintiffs’ injuries, warranting dismissal of their APA claims. The APA provides a right to judicial review of all “final agency actions for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court.” 5 U.S.C. § 704. Plaintiffs seek adjudication of their naturalization applications, which Congress provides pursuant to § 1447(b) once 120 days since the USCIS examination has passed. The Court may adjudicate Plaintiffs’ naturalization applications or remand them back to USCIS for adjudication. § 1447(b). The Court opts to follow Congress’s word, in lieu of accepting Plaintiffs’ invitation to write a law review article about whether they are entitled to systemic declaratory or injunctive relief under
-5-

the APA. Plaintiffs cite to Roshandel v. Chertoff for the proposition that this Court can grant systemic declaratory relief under the APA separate and apart from the remedy afforded to them by § 1447(b). No. 07-01739-MJP (W.D. Wash. May 5, 2008) (Slip Op. At 7-8). Unlike in Roshandel and the related cases cited by Plaintiffs, this Court only concerns itself with remedying Plaintiffs’ cognizable injuries. A remand with specific instructions to USCIS sufficiently does so, warranting dismissal of Plaintiffs’ APA claims.
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION Plaintiffs’ proposed class action alleges a systemic, unlawful delay in the adjudication of citizenship applications caused by Defendants’ use of an unauthorized FBI “name check.” Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, Plaintiffs’ amended complaint asks the Court to certify the proposed class as:
All lawful permanent residents of the United States residing in the Southern District of Florida who have submitted naturalization applications to USCIS but whose naturalization applications have not been determined within 120 days of the date of their initial examination due to the pendency of the “name check” process.
Amended Compl. at ¶87. The relief that Plaintiffs seek on behalf of the proposed class includes: (1) adjudication of Plaintiffs’ naturalization claims; and (2) declaratory and injunctive relief related to Defendants’ alleged systemic APA violations. As set forth in the ensuing analysis, the Court will not certify the proposed class as to Plaintiffs’ § 1447(b) claim because Plaintiffs lack standing and otherwise fail to meet the typicality requirement set forth by Rule 23(a). In light of the Court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ APA claims, the Court need not consider their class certification. I. LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 23 permits the certification of a proposed class where: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class;
-6-

(3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). These factors are commonly identified as numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. Prado-Steinman v. Bush, 221 F.3d 1266, 1278 (11th Cir. 2000). The party seeking certification has the burden of meeting all four factors of Rule 23(a), and at least one type of class described in Rule 23(b). Alchem Prods. Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 614 (1997). Plaintiffs seek certification pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2), which states,“the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory judgment relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.” Class certification is left to the Court’s discretion. Hines v. Widnall, 334 F.3d 1253, 1255 (11th Cir. 2003).
As a threshold matter, Plaintiffs must establish standing to represent a proposed class. PradoSteinman, 221 F.3d at 1279; Griffin v. Dugger, 823 F.2d 1476, 1482 (11th Cir. 1987). Article III requires the representatives of a proposed class to show that: (1) they suffered an actual or threatened injury; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendants; and (3) the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable ruling. Friends of Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environ., Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-81 (2000). In order to represent the proposed class, Plaintiffs must show that they “suffer the same injury as the class members.” Prado-Steinman, at 1279. In determining Plaintiffs’ standing, the Court must conduct a “fact-specific inquiry” that includes “factual proffers, through affidavits and other evidentiary documents.” Murray v. Auslander, 244 F.3d 807, 810 (11th Cir. 2001); See also Prado-Steinman, at 1280. II. PLAINTIFFS LACK STANDING TO REPRESENT THE PROPOSED CLASS
The proposed class definition includes those “whose naturalization applications have not been determined...due to the pendency of the ‘name check’ process.” Amended Compl. at ¶ 87. According
-7-

to the affidavit of Ms. Elaine Watson, the Section Chief for the Naturalization Unit of USCIS in Miami, FL, the FBI has completed name checks for all named Plaintiffs listed in the amended complaint. See Def. Mot. to Remand, Exh. A. It is clear that named Plaintiffs no longer suffer the injury that they put forth on behalf of the proposed class. Accordingly, Plaintiffs lack standing to represent a class “of which they are not members.” Brown v. Sibley, 650 F.2d 760, 771 (5th Cir. 1981) (denying class certification where named plaintiffs failed to show that they suffered the injury allegedly suffered by the proposed class). III. PLAINTIFFS’ § 1447(b) CLAIM FAILS THE TYPICALITY REQUIREMENT
Even assuming arguendo that Plaintiffs had standing to represent the proposed class, they fail to meet the typicality requirement of Rule 23(a). The typicality prong demands a nexus between the class representatives’ legal claims and those of the remaining class members. Prado-Steinman, at 1278. Typicality “refers to the individual characteristics of the named plaintiff[s] in relation to the class.” Id. While Plaintiffs need not show identical claims to the rest of the proposed class, they must suffer the same injury “in order to be typical under Rule 23(a)(3).” Murray, 244 F.3d at 811; See also Bush v. JRHBW, Inc., 513 F.3d 1314, 1322 (11th Cir. 2008).
It is a telling indicator of the individualized nature of Plaintiffs’ claims that USCIS already adjudicated some of their applications. Jose Canal, Jesus Constantini, and Oussama Karaki are now naturalized citizens, while five others still await a final decision. But more importantly, as discussed above, the FBI has completed name checks for all named Plaintiffs. At this point, named Plaintiffs have a different alleged injury than that typical of the proposed class. Named Plaintiffs are now further along in the naturalization process than the proposed class who allegedly suffer injury because of “the pendency of the ‘name check’ process.” Amended Compl. at ¶ 87. The Court concerns itself only with named Plaintiffs’ injury, which is remedied by the Court’s decision to remand their
-8-

naturalization applications to USCIS. Because Plaintiffs’ injury is not typical of the proposed class, the Court must deny class certification. See Murray, 244 F.3d at 811; Bush, 513 F.3d at 1322.
CONCLUSION Pursuant to § 1447(b), named Plaintiffs’ naturalization applications are remanded to USCIS for adjudication within 90 days. Plaintiffs Jose Canal, Jesus Constantini, Oussama Karaki, and Ana Gonzalez are DISMISSED from this action because their claims are now moot. Plaintiffs’ APA claims are DISMISSED, and Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is DENIED. This case is CLOSED and all other pending motions are DENIED as moot.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 24th day of November, 2008.

Copies provided to: Counsel of Record

_______________________________________ FEDERICO A. MORENO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-9-

 
 Case: 1:08-cv-21588-FAM As of: 03/12/2014 08:38 PM EDT 1 of 8

U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida (Miami) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:08−cv−21588−FAM

CLOSED,EGT

Weaver et al v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) et al Assigned to: Chief Judge Federico A. Moreno Cause: 28:1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 06/04/2008 Date Terminated: 11/25/2008 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 890 Other Statutory Actions Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Oksana Weaver

represented by Cheryl Ada Elizabeth Little Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center 3000 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 400 Miami, FL 33137 305−573−1106 Fax: 576−6273 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Khurrum B. Wahid Wahid Vizcaino LLP 6221 W. Atlantic Blvd Pompano Beach, FL 33063 305−444−4303 Fax: 444−4302 Email: khurrum@wvmlawfirm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary M. Gundrum Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center 3000 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 400 Miami, FL 33137 305−573−1106 Email: mgundrum@fiacfla.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tania Galloni Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center 3000 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 400 Miami, FL 33137 305−573−1106, ext. 1080 Fax: 305−576−6273 Email: tgalloni@fiacfla.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Luciano Horna

represented by Cheryl Ada Elizabeth Little (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Khurrum B. Wahid (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:08-cv-21588-FAM As of: 03/12/2014 08:38 PM EDT 2 of 8

Plaintiff Raheel Rangoonwala
Plaintiff Din Mohammed
Plaintiff Saifuddin Siddiqui

Mary M. Gundrum (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tania Galloni (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Cheryl Ada Elizabeth Little (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Khurrum B. Wahid (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary M. Gundrum (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tania Galloni (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Cheryl Ada Elizabeth Little (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Khurrum B. Wahid (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary M. Gundrum (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tania Galloni (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Cheryl Ada Elizabeth Little (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Khurrum B. Wahid (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:08-cv-21588-FAM As of: 03/12/2014 08:38 PM EDT 3 of 8

Plaintiff Imtiaz Isakh
Plaintiff Mercedes Gomez
Plaintiff Ney Roberto Boutet

Mary M. Gundrum (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tania Galloni (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Cheryl Ada Elizabeth Little (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Khurrum B. Wahid (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary M. Gundrum (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tania Galloni (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Cheryl Ada Elizabeth Little (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Khurrum B. Wahid (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary M. Gundrum (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tania Galloni (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Cheryl Ada Elizabeth Little (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Khurrum B. Wahid (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:08-cv-21588-FAM As of: 03/12/2014 08:38 PM EDT 4 of 8

Plaintiff Imran Shaffi
Plaintiff Mohammed Kheiri Plaintiffs−Petitioners, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated

Mary M. Gundrum (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tania Galloni (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Cheryl Ada Elizabeth Little (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Khurrum B. Wahid (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary M. Gundrum (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tania Galloni (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Cheryl Ada Elizabeth Little (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Khurrum B. Wahid (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary M. Gundrum (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tania Galloni (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Linda M. Swacina, District Director, Miami District

represented by Dexter Lee United States Attorney's Office 99 NE 4 Street Miami, FL 33132 305−961−9320 Fax: 530−7139

Case: 1:08-cv-21588-FAM As of: 03/12/2014 08:38 PM EDT 5 of 8

Email: dexter.lee@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher W. Dempsey United States Department of Justice PO Box 878 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Email: christopher.dempsey@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Kathy Redman District Director, Tampa District, USCIS

represented by Dexter Lee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher W. Dempsey (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
USCIS Jonathan Scharfen, Acting Director

represented by Dexter Lee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher W. Dempsey (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
U.S. Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") Michael Chertoff, Secretary

represented by Dexter Lee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher W. Dempsey (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"); Robert S. Mueller, III, Director

represented by Dexter Lee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher W. Dempsey (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
U.S. Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey

represented by Dexter Lee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher W. Dempsey (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:08-cv-21588-FAM As of: 03/12/2014 08:38 PM EDT 6 of 8

Date Filed 06/04/2008 06/04/2008 06/06/2008 06/10/2008
07/11/2008 07/16/2008 08/01/2008 08/04/2008 08/04/2008 08/21/2008 08/21/2008 08/21/2008

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against all defendants Filing fee $ 350. Receipt#: 981548, filed by Raheel Rangoonwala, Din Mohammed, Oksana Weaver, Saifuddin Siddiqui, Imtiaz Isakh, Mercedes Gomez, Ney Roberto Boutet, Imran Shaffi, Mohammed Kheiri, Luciano Horna.(mg) (Entered: 06/05/2008)
2 Summons Issued as to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Kathy Redman, USCIS, U.S. Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI");, U.S. Attorney General. (mg) (Entered: 06/05/2008)
3 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Dexter Lee on behalf of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Kathy Redman, USCIS, U.S. Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI");, U.S. Attorney General (Lee, Dexter) (Entered: 06/06/2008)
4 SUMMONS (Affidavit) Returned Executed by Raheel Rangoonwala, Din Mohammed, Oksana Weaver, Saifuddin Siddiqui, Imtiaz Isakh, Mercedes Gomez, Ney Roberto Boutet, Imran Shaffi, Mohammed Kheiri, Luciano Horna. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) served on 6/6/2008, answer due 8/4/2008; Kathy Redman served on 6/6/2008, answer due 8/4/2008; USCIS served on 6/6/2008, answer due 8/4/2008; U.S. Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") served on 6/6/2008, answer due 8/4/2008; Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"); served on 6/6/2008, answer due 8/4/2008; U.S. Attorney General served on 6/6/2008, answer due 8/4/2008. (Galloni, Tania) (Entered: 06/10/2008)
5 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Christopher W. Dempsey on behalf of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Kathy Redman, USCIS, U.S. Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI");, U.S. Attorney General (Dempsey, Christopher) (Entered: 07/11/2008)
6 MOTION to Dismiss 1 Complaint, by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Kathy Redman, USCIS, U.S. Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI");, U.S. Attorney General. Responses due by 8/4/2008 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−D)(Dempsey, Christopher) (Entered: 07/16/2008)
7 AMENDED COMPLAINT, filed by Raheel Rangoonwala, Din Mohammed, Oksana Weaver, Saifuddin Siddiqui, Imtiaz Isakh, Mercedes Gomez, Ney Roberto Boutet, Imran Shaffi, Mohammed Kheiri, Luciano Horna.(Galloni, Tania) (Entered: 08/01/2008)
8 RESPONSE in Opposition re 6 MOTION to Dismiss 1 Complaint, MOTION to Dismiss 1 Complaint, filed by Raheel Rangoonwala, Din Mohammed, Oksana Weaver, Saifuddin Siddiqui, Imtiaz Isakh, Mercedes Gomez, Ney Roberto Boutet, Imran Shaffi, Mohammed Kheiri, Luciano Horna. (Galloni, Tania) (Entered: 08/04/2008)
9 Plaintiff's MOTION to Certify Class and Request for Oral Argument by Raheel Rangoonwala, Din Mohammed, Oksana Weaver, Saifuddin Siddiqui, Imtiaz Isakh, Mercedes Gomez, Ney Roberto Boutet, Imran Shaffi, Mohammed Kheiri, Luciano Horna. Responses due by 8/21/2008 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−5)(Galloni, Tania) (Entered: 08/04/2008)
10 RESPONSE in Opposition re 9 Plaintiff's MOTION to Certify Class and Request for Oral Argument filed by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Kathy Redman, USCIS, U.S. Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI");, U.S. Attorney General. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−D)(Dempsey, Christopher) (Entered: 08/21/2008)
11 MOTION to Dismiss 7 Amended Complaint by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Kathy Redman, USCIS, U.S. Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI");, U.S. Attorney General. Responses due by 9/8/2008 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−B)(Dempsey, Christopher) (Entered: 08/21/2008)
12 REPLY to Response to Motion re 6 MOTION to Dismiss 1 Complaint, MOTION to Dismiss 1 Complaint, filed by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Case: 1:08-cv-21588-FAM As of: 03/12/2014 08:38 PM EDT 7 of 8

08/25/2008 08/29/2008 09/05/2008 09/08/2008
09/11/2008 09/16/2008 09/19/2008 09/22/2008 09/22/2008 10/15/2008 10/15/2008 10/27/2008

(USCIS), Kathy Redman, USCIS, U.S. Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI");, U.S. Attorney General. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−B)(Dempsey, Christopher) (Entered: 08/21/2008)
13 SCHEDULING REPORT− Rule 26(f). (Galloni, Tania) (Entered: 08/25/2008)
14 REPLY to Response to Motion re 9 Plaintiff's MOTION to Certify Class and Request for Oral Argument filed by Raheel Rangoonwala, Din Mohammed, Oksana Weaver, Saifuddin Siddiqui, Imtiaz Isakh, Mercedes Gomez, Ney Roberto Boutet, Imran Shaffi, Mohammed Kheiri, Luciano Horna. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Lisette Losada)(Galloni, Tania) (Entered: 08/29/2008)
15 MOTION to Stay Discovery by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Kathy Redman, USCIS, U.S. Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI");, U.S. Attorney General. Responses due by 9/22/2008 (Dempsey, Christopher) (Entered: 09/05/2008)
16 RESPONSE in Opposition re 11 MOTION to Dismiss 7 Amended Complaint MOTION to Dismiss 7 Amended Complaint filed by Raheel Rangoonwala, Din Mohammed, Oksana Weaver, Saifuddin Siddiqui, Imtiaz Isakh, Mercedes Gomez, Ney Roberto Boutet, Imran Shaffi, Mohammed Kheiri, Luciano Horna. (Attachments: # 1 Roshandel Order Denying Motion to Dismiss)(Galloni, Tania) (Entered: 09/08/2008)
17 MOTION for Leave to File Surreply in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Kathy Redman, USCIS, U.S. Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI");, U.S. Attorney General. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Dempsey, Christopher) (Entered: 09/11/2008)
18 ORDER granting 17 Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Surreply. Signed by Chief Judge Federico A. Moreno on 9/15/2008. (MM) (Entered: 09/16/2008)
19 Plaintiff's MOTION for Leave to File Response to Defendants' Sur−Reply by Raheel Rangoonwala, Din Mohammed, Oksana Weaver, Saifuddin Siddiqui, Imtiaz Isakh, Mercedes Gomez, Ney Roberto Boutet, Imran Shaffi, Mohammed Kheiri, Luciano Horna. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Sur−Reply)(Galloni, Tania) (Entered: 09/19/2008)
20 RESPONSE/REPLY to 14 Reply to Response to Motion, to Certify Class, or SURREPLY, filed by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Kathy Redman, USCIS, U.S. Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI");, U.S. Attorney General. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−B)(Dempsey, Christopher) (Entered: 09/22/2008)
21 RESPONSE in Opposition re 15 MOTION to Stay Discovery filed by Raheel Rangoonwala, Din Mohammed, Oksana Weaver, Saifuddin Siddiqui, Imtiaz Isakh, Mercedes Gomez, Ney Roberto Boutet, Imran Shaffi, Mohammed Kheiri, Luciano Horna. (Galloni, Tania) (Entered: 09/22/2008)
22 STATUS REPORT AND REQUEST FOR RULING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Kathy Redman, USCIS, U.S. Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI");, U.S. Attorney General. (Dempsey, Christopher) (Entered: 10/15/2008)
23 RESPONSE/REPLY to 22 Status Report, filed by Raheel Rangoonwala, Din Mohammed, Oksana Weaver, Saifuddin Siddiqui, Imtiaz Isakh, Mercedes Gomez, Ney Roberto Boutet, Imran Shaffi, Mohammed Kheiri, Luciano Horna. (Galloni, Tania) (Entered: 10/15/2008)
24 Plaintiff's MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint by Raheel Rangoonwala, Din Mohammed, Oksana Weaver, Saifuddin Siddiqui, Imtiaz Isakh, Mercedes Gomez, Ney Roberto Boutet, Imran Shaffi, Mohammed Kheiri, Luciano Horna. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Second Amended Complaint)(Galloni, Tania) (Entered: 10/27/2008)

Case: 1:08-cv-21588-FAM As of: 03/12/2014 08:38 PM EDT 8 of 8

10/30/2008 11/06/2008 11/17/2008 11/17/2008
11/17/2008 11/18/2008 11/24/2008 11/25/2008 12/01/2008 12/10/2008
12/15/2008 01/06/2009

25 Plaintiff's MOTION to Compel Discovery by Raheel Rangoonwala, Din Mohammed, Oksana Weaver, Saifuddin Siddiqui, Imtiaz Isakh, Mercedes Gomez, Ney Roberto Boutet, Imran Shaffi, Mohammed Kheiri, Luciano Horna. Responses due by 11/17/2008 (Galloni, Tania) (Entered: 10/30/2008)
26 RESPONSE in Opposition re 24 Plaintiff's MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint filed by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Kathy Redman, USCIS, U.S. Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI");, U.S. Attorney General. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Dempsey, Christopher) (Entered: 11/06/2008)
27 STIPULATION re 25 Plaintiff's MOTION to Compel Discovery by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Kathy Redman, USCIS, U.S. Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI");, U.S. Attorney General. (Dempsey, Christopher) (Entered: 11/17/2008)
28 REPLY to Response to Motion re 24 Plaintiff's MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint filed by Raheel Rangoonwala, Din Mohammed, Oksana Weaver, Saifuddin Siddiqui, Imtiaz Isakh, Mercedes Gomez, Ney Roberto Boutet, Imran Shaffi, Mohammed Kheiri, Luciano Horna. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Revised Proposed Second Amended Complaint)(Galloni, Tania) (Entered: 11/17/2008)
29 Joint MOTION for Hearing (Status Conference) by Raheel Rangoonwala, Din Mohammed, Oksana Weaver, Saifuddin Siddiqui, Imtiaz Isakh, Mercedes Gomez, Ney Roberto Boutet, Imran Shaffi, Mohammed Kheiri, Luciano Horna. (Galloni, Tania) (Entered: 11/17/2008)
30 NOTICE by Raheel Rangoonwala, Din Mohammed, Oksana Weaver, Saifuddin Siddiqui, Imtiaz Isakh, Mercedes Gomez, Ney Roberto Boutet, Imran Shaffi, Mohammed Kheiri, Luciano Horna re 9 Plaintiff's MOTION to Certify Class and Request for Oral Argument (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit − Declaration in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification)(Galloni, Tania) (Entered: 11/18/2008)
31 Joint MOTION for Protective Order re Privacy Act by Raheel Rangoonwala, Din Mohammed, Oksana Weaver, Saifuddin Siddiqui, Imtiaz Isakh, Mercedes Gomez, Ney Roberto Boutet, Imran Shaffi, Mohammed Kheiri, Luciano Horna. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Galloni, Tania) (Entered: 11/24/2008)
32 ORDER REMANDING CASE to USCIS, DENYING Class Certification, and denying all other motions as MOOT. Signed by Chief Judge Federico A. Moreno on 11/24/2008. (MM) (Entered: 11/25/2008)
33 Transmittal Letter Sent With remand order, To: USCIS (dg) (Entered: 12/01/2008)
34 Plaintiff's MOTION for Reconsideration re 32 Order on Motion to Stay, Order on Motion for Leave to File,, Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Motion for Hearing, Order on Motion for Protective Order, Order on Motion to Dismiss, Order on Motion to Certify Class,, Plaintiff's MOTION to Alter Judgment ( Responses due by 12/29/2008) by Raheel Rangoonwala, Din Mohammed, Oksana Weaver, Saifuddin Siddiqui, Imtiaz Isakh, Mercedes Gomez, Ney Roberto Boutet, Imran Shaffi, Mohammed Kheiri, Luciano Horna. (Galloni, Tania) (Entered: 12/10/2008)
35 ORDER denying 34 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Chief Judge Federico A. Moreno on 12/15/2008. (MM) (Entered: 12/15/2008)
36 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT order of Remand (cqs) (Entered: 01/07/2009)