I

I RANJANA NATARAJAN, SBN 230149 MARK D. ROSENBAUl'v!>. SBN 59940
2 ACLU FOUNDATION Ot'
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 3 1616 Beverly Boulevard
Los Angeles CA 90026 4 Telephone: (213) 977-9500
Facsunile: (213) 250-3919
5
LUCAS GUTTENTAG, SBN 90208 6 CECILLIA D. WANG, SBN 187782
ACLU FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS' 7 RIGHTS PROJECT
39 Drumm Street 8 San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 343-0775 9 FaCSImile: (415) 395-0950

10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

(See next page for additional counsel)

II UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13 MUSTAFAAZIZ; YOUSUF

Case No.

14 BHAGHANI; SAMINA KHWAJA; KOLOOD AL-ECAE~J}; IBRAHIM

15 BATLIWALA; IMKAl'4 CHAUDHRY; LAMIA EL FEKY;

COMPLAINT FOR

16 MUHAMMAD MALIK; MUSTAFA OSMAN and SAMI TRAD,

DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; PETITIONS

17 individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated,

FOR NATURALIZATION

18

Plaintiffs,

CLASS ACTION

19

vs.

20

ALBERTO GONZALES, in his o.fficial capacity as Attorney General

21

of the United States; MICHAEL CHERTOFF, in his official capacity

22 as Secretary of the U.S. Department
of Homeland Security; EMILIO T.

u.s. 23

GONZALEZ in his official capacity as Director of Citizenship and

24

Immigration Services; JANE ARELLANO, in her official capacity

25

as Field Director of the Los Angeles Distr.ict of U.S. Citizenship and

26

Immigration Services; and ROBERT S. MUELLER, III, in his official

27

capacity as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation,

28

Defendants.

1 TODD GALLINGER, SBN 238666 Of Counsel
2 COUNCIL ON AMERICAN-ISLAMIC RELATIONS (CAIR) - CALIFORNIA
3 2180 W. Crescent Ave., Suite F Anaheim, CA 92801
4 Telephone: (714) 776-1847
5 Facsnnile: (114) 77678340
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
6
7
8
9 10 11
12
13 14 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 25
26
27
28

1

'JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2

1. PetitionerslPlaintiffs ("Plaintiffs") are long-time, lawful permanent

3 residents of the United States, whose applications for naturalization have been

4 unlawfully and unreasonably delayed for more than two years. This Court has

5 subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because

6 Plaintiffs' claims arise under the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"), 8

7 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., and regulations arising thereunder. This Court also has

8 jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) to adjudicate the naturalization applications

9 of Plaintiffs because the responsible agency, the United States Citizenship and

10 Immigration Services ("CIS"), has failed to adjudicate the applications despite the

11 passage of more than 120 days since the date of their naturalization examinations.

12 This Court also has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 (Declaratory Judgment

13 Act) and 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. (Administrative Procedure Act). This Court may

14 grant declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1361,2202, and 5

15 U.S.C. § 702.

16

2. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.c. § 1391(b) and §

17 1391(e) because Respondents/Defendants ("Defendants") are officers or

18 employees of agencies of the United States government, acting in their official

19 capacity under color of legal authority, and a substantial portion of the events and

20 omissions giving rise to the claims herein occurred in this District, and all

21 plaintiffs reside in this District. No real property is involved in this action.

22

INTRODUCTION

23

3. Plaintiffs are lawful permanent residents of the United States who

24 have all lived in the United States for many years and who have applied to

25 naturalize as United States citizens. They have been unlawfully deprived of

26 naturalization for two years or more because of unreasonable and extraordinary

27 agency delays. Plaintiffs have fulfilled all of the statutory requirements for

28 naturalization and passed their naturalization examinations over two years ago.

1

1 Yet CIS has failed to adjudicate Plaintiffs' applications within 120 days of the date

2 of their naturalization examinations, as required by law.

3

4. Plaintiffs, many of whom have spent virtually their whole adult lives

4 in this country, seek to pledge their allegiance to the United States and to

5 participate fully in our society as United States citizens. Having qualified to do so

6 after years ofliving in the United States and contributing to our country and their

7 local communities, Plaintiffs have been robbed of their statutory right to naturalize

8 solely because of the bureaucratic failings and callous inaction of two federal

9 government agencies -- CIS and the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"). CIS

10 has delayed the adjudication of Plaintiffs' naturalization applications because it

11 has delegated a new form of security check called a "name check" to the FBI,

12 which has willfully and unreasonably delayed Plaintiffs' "name checks" for years.

13

5. As a result of the agencies' failure to adjudicate their applications for

14 citizenship, Plaintiffs are unable to sponsor for lawful permanent residency their

15 immediate relatives living abroad, apply for and receive business-related benefits

16 reserved for United States citizens (such as federal small business loans), or

17 participate as United States citizens in the Visa Waiver Program and travel abroad

18 and return to the United States without fear of exclusion. Moreover, Plaintiffs are

19 unable to vote in elections, serve on juries, and enjoy the other rights and

20 responsibilities of U.S. citizenship.

21

6. Defendants are officials of the two government agencies that have

22 failed to adjudicate Plaintiffs' naturalization applications within the time periods

23 prescribed by law. The exceedingly long delays in adjudication are caused by

24 Defendants' unwillingness to complete in timely fashion a background check

25 known as a "name check." Despite the fact that Plaintiffs have been waiting for

26 over two years since passing their naturalization examinations, Defendants refuse

27 to set any deadlines for completion of these "name checks"; instead, they have

28 allowed Plaintiffs' applications to linger indefinitely. Through their callous and

2

1 unreasonable inaction, Defendants are depriving Plaintiffs of the rights and

2 benefits of U.S. citizenship.

3

7. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive reliefto require the

4 Defendants to adjudicate their applications for naturalization within the time

5 periods prescribed by law, and ask the Court to declare the agencies' delays to be

6 in violation of immigration laws and regulations, laws governing administrative

7 agency action, and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In addition,

8 the named Plaintiffs request that the Court review their applications de novo and

9 naturalize them as United States citizens, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b)..

10

PARTIES

11 Plaintiffs

12

8. Plaintiff Mustafa Aziz is a citizen of Afghanistan. He is a lawful

13 permanent of the United States, and he resides in Irvine, California. He applied

14 for naturalization with CIS and had his naturalization examination in April 2004.

15 His naturalization application has not been adjudicated.

16

9. Plaintiff Yousuf Bhaghani is a citizen of Pakistan. He is a lawful

17 permanent resident of the United States, and he lives in Corona, California. He

18 applied for naturalization with CIS and had his naturalization examination in

19 August 2002. His naturalization application has not been adjudicated.

20

10. Plaintiff Samina Khwaja is a citizen of the United Kingdom and

21 Pakistan. She is a lawful permanent resident of the United States, and she lives in

22 Orange County, California. She applied for naturalization with CIS and had her

23 naturalization examination in January 2004. Her naturalization application has not

24 been adjudicated.

25

11. Plaintiff Kolood AI-Kafaji is a citizen of Iraq. She is a lawful

26 permanent resident of the United States, and she lives in Irvine, California. She

27 applied for naturalization with CIS and had her naturalization examination in

28 December 2003. Her naturalization application has not been adjudicated.

3

1

12. PlaintiffIbrahim Batliwala is a citizen ofIndia. He is a lawful

2 pennanent resident of the United States, and he lives in Anaheim, California. He

3 applied for naturalization with CIS and had his naturalization examination in July

4 2002. His naturalization application has not been adjudicated.

5

13. PlaintiffImran Chaudhry is a citizen of Pakistan. He is a lawful

6 permanent resident of the United States, and he lives in Costa Mesa, California.

7 He applied for naturalization with CIS and had his naturalization examination in

8 January 2004. His naturalization application has not been adjudicated.

9

14. Plaintiff Lamia El Feky is a citizen of Egypt. She is a lawful

10 permanent resident of the United States, and she lives in Foothill Ranch,

11 California. She applied for naturalization with CIS and had her naturalization

12 examination in February 2004. Her naturalization application has not been

13 adjudicated.

14

15. Plaintiff Muhammad Malik is a citizen of Pakistan. He is a lawful

15 pennanent resident of the United States, and he lives in Corona, California. He

16 applied for naturalization with CIS and had his naturalization examination in May

17 2004. His naturalization application has not been adjudicated.

18

16. Plaintiff Mustafa Osman is a citizen of Sudan. He is a lawful

19 pennanent resident of the United States, and he lives in Norwalk, California. He

20 applied for naturalization with CIS and had his naturalization examination in

21 August 2004. His naturalization application has not been adjudicated.

22

17. PlaintiffSami Trad is a citizen of Lebanon. He is a lawful pennanent

23 resident of the United States, and he lives in San Gabriel, California. He applied

24 for naturalization with CIS and had his naturalization examination in February

25 2004. His naturalization application has not been adjudicated.

26 Defendants

27

18. Defendant Alberto Gonzales is the Attorney General ofthe United

28 States, and such, is the head of the United States Department of Justice and the

4

1 chief law enforcement officer of the federal government. The Attorney General

2 has the authority to naturalize persons as citizens of the United States. 8 U.S.C. §

3 1421(a). The Attorney General is also ultimately responsible for the Federal

4 Bureau of Investigation, a subdivision of the Justice Department. Mr. Gonzales is

5 sued here in his official capacity.

6

19. Defendant Michael Chertoffis the Secretary of the Department of

7 Homeland Security ("DHS"). As of March 1, 2003, DHS is the agency

8 responsible for implementing the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA").

9 Within DHS, CIS(formerly part of the Immigration and Naturalization Service

10 ("INS")), is responsible for implementing the provisions of the INA under which
~
11 lawful permanent residents are naturalized as United States citizens. Mr Chertoff

12 is sued here in his official capacity.

13

20. Defendant Emilio T. Gonzalez is the Director of CIS, and as such is

14 responsible for implementing the provisions of the INA under which lawful

15 permanent residents are naturalized as United States citizens. He is sued here in

16 his official capacity.

17

21. Defendant Jane Arellano is the Field Office Director of the Los

18 Angeles District of CIS. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 310.2, Ms. Arellano has been

19 delegated authority to control all CIS activities within the Los Angeles District,

20 including the authority to adjudicate naturalization applications. She is sued here

21 in her official capacity.

22

22. Defendant Robert S. Mueller III is the Director of the FBI. The FBI

23 is an agency within the United States Department of Justice whose mission is to

24 enforce criminal laws and defend the United States against terrorist and foreign

25 intelligence threats. Upon the request of CIS, the FBI performs "name checks"

26 and other background checks of all applicants for naturalization.

27

LEGAL FRAMEWORK

28

23. Federal immigration law allows persons who have been residing in

5

I the United States as lawful permanent residents to become United States citizens

2 through a process mown as naturalization.

3

24. A person seeking to naturalize must meet certain requirements,

4 including an understanding of the English language and history and civics of the

5 United States; a sufficient period of physical presence in the United States; and

6 good moral character. 8 U.S.C. § 1423, 1427(a).

7

25. Persons seeking to naturalize must submit an application for

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

9 adjudicating naturalization applications. 8 C.F.R. § 100.2.

10

26. Once an application is submitted, CIS conducts a background

II investigation of each naturalization applicant. 8 U.S.c. § 1446(a); 8 C.F.R. §

12 335.1.

13

27. According to CIS regulations, the background investigation includes

14 a full criminal background check performed by the FBI. 8 C.F.R. § 335.2. After

15 the background investigation is completed, CIS schedules a naturalization

16 examination, at which an applicant meets with a CIS examiner who is authorized

17 to ask questions and take testimony_ The CIS examiner must determine whether to

18 grant or deny the naturalization application. 8 U.S.C. § 1446(d).

19

28. CIS must grant a naturalization application if the applicant has

20 complied with all requirements for naturalization. 8 C.F.R. § 335.3.

21

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

22 examination or, at the latest, within 120 days after the date of the examination. 8

23 C.F.R. § 335.3. Once an application is granted, the applicant is sworn in as a

24 United States citizen.

25

30. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that since September 11,2001,

26 CIS has added - without promulgating any regulation - a new type of

27 background check to the naturalization process, mown as a "name check." A

28 "name check" is a check of FBI records based on the full name of the applicant.

6

1 The "name check" is conducted by FBI personnel through manual and electronic

2 searches of the FBI's centralized records. CIS requests the FBI to conduct "name

3 checks" on all applications for naturalization.

4

31. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that CIS does not adjudicate

5 applications for naturalization until it receives a completed "name check" from the

6 FBI. Neither CIS nor the FBI impose any time limits for completion of "name

7 checks." The FBI claims that CIS determines the order of resolution of the

8 requested "name checks," and CIS claims that it cannot ask or require the FBI to

9 complete "name checks" within any particular timeframe.

10

32. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that CIS has implemented recently,

II or will soon implement, a new policy or practice of delaying naturalization

12 examinations until after the "name check" is completed. Thus, for future

13 applicants for naturalization, lengthy delays in adjudication will occur prior to the

14 examination, rather than after the examination.

15

33. When CIS fails to adjudicate a naturalization application within 120

16 days of the examination, the applicant may seek de novo review of the application

17 by a district court. 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). When the applicant requests district court

18 review, the district court gains exclusive jurisdiction over the application, United 19 States v. Hovsepian, 359 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2004), and it may naturalize the

20 applicant. 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b).

21

STATEMENT OF FACTS

22

34. Mustafa Aziz is a native and citizen of Afghanistan who came to the

23 United States with his family at the age of one. His family came to the U.S. as

24 refugees fleeing war and persecution in their native country. He lives in Irvine,

25 California with his parents and siblings, who are all United States citizens. He has

26 been a lawful permanent resident for more than twenty years.

27

35. Mr. Aziz enlisted and served in active duty as a supply journeyman in

28 the United States Air Force for four years, attaining the rank of Senior Airman.

7

1 He is presently in the inactive reserves ofthe Air Force, and he has obtained his

2 undergraduate degree in aeronautics.

3

36. In September 2003, while serving in the military, Mr. Aziz applied

4 for naturalization. In April 2004, he successfully passed his naturalization

5 examination. He meets all other statutory requirements for naturalization.

6

37. Despite Mr. Aziz's numerous inquiries with CIS, his repeated

7 submission of his fingerprints, and his service in the U.S. military after the

8 completion of Department of Defense background checks, CIS has failed to

9 adjudicate his application for naturalization. CIS personnel informed Mr. Aziz

10 that his application is being delayed pending completion of a "name check."

II

38. Mr. Aziz intends to obtain a commercial pilot's license, for which he

12 needs further education and training. Because of CIS's failure to adjudicate his

13 naturalization application, he is not eligible for certain aeronautical employment

14 opportunities, and he faces greater obstacles to becoming a commercial pilot.

15

39. Plaintiff Yousuf Bhaghani is a native and citizen of Pakistan who has

16 resided in the United States since 1989. He became a legal permanent resident of

17 the United States in 1998 and currently resides in Corona, California with his

18 family. His wife of ten years and his three children are all United States citizens.

19 He owns two small businesses, a computer store and a wholesale car company.

20

40. Mr. Bhaghani applied for naturalization in November 2001 and

21 successfully passed his naturalization examination on August 23,2002. CIS later

22 re-opened his case to ask for additional documents, which he submitted by

23 February 2003. He meets all other statutory requirements for naturalization.

24

41. Despite numerous written and in-person inquires with CIS, and the

25 intervention of his representative in Congress, the Honorable Ken Calvert, CIS has

26 failed to adjudicate his application for naturalization. In a response to a written

27 inquiry, the FBI stated that his "name check" was completed in December 2002.

28 However, CIS has informed Mr. Bhaghani, through the Honorable Ken Calvert's

8

1 office, that his application is being delayed pending completion of a "name

2 check."

3

42. Because of CIS's failure to adjudicate his naturalization application,

4 Mr. Bhaghani is unable to sponsor for lawful permanent residency his elderly,

5 ailing parents who live in Pakistan. He is also unable to travel abroad without
6 inconvenience and fear of harassment because he does not have a u.s. passport.

7

43. Plaintiff Samina Khwaja, M.D., is a citizen of the United Kingdom

8 and Pakistan. She lives with her family in Orange County, California. Dr. Khwaja

9 was born in Pakistan and grew up in Britain and the Netherlands. She is a medical

10 doctor and completed her medical residency and fellowship in the United States.

11 She has been a lawful pennanent resident of the United States since 1992.

12

44. In August 2003, Dr. Khwaja applied fornaturalization. She

13 successfully passed her naturalization examination on January 14, 2004, and meets

14 all other statutory requirements for naturalization.

15

45. Despite Dr. Khwaja's numerous written and in-person inquiries and

16 the intervention of her representative in Congress, the Honorable Christopher Cox,

17 CIS has failed to adjudicate Dr. Khwaja's application for naturalization. Dr.

18 Khwaja was informed that her application is being delayed pending completion of

19 a "name check."

20

46. Plaintiff Kolood Al-Kafaji is a native and citizen of Iraq. Her

21 husband came to the United States as a refugee from Iraq after the Persian Gulf

22 War, after spending two years in a refugee camp, and she soon followed. She lives

23 in Irvine, California with her husband and four children, who are all United States

24 citizens. She and her husband own and operate a small grocery business and two

25 grocery stores in Orange County, employing several local residents. Ms. AI-Kafaji

26 is a homemaker who works part-time at the family's grocery stores.

27

47. Ms. AI-Kafaji has been a lawful permanent resident ofthe United

28 States since 1997. She applied for naturalization in early 2003. She successfully

9

1 passed her naturalization examination in December 2003, and meets all other

2 statutory requirements for naturalization.

3

48. Despite Ms. Al-Kafaji's in-person inquiry to CIS, two requests for

4 assistance to her representative in Congress, and two submissions of her

5 fingerprints, CIS has failed to adjudicate her naturalization application. Ms. Al-

6 Kafaji was informed that her application is being delayed pending completion of a

7 "name check."

8

49. Plaintiff Ibrahim Batliwala is a native and citizen of India. He has

9 lived in the United States for eighteen years, and he became a lawful permanent

10 resident in 1995. He lives with his wife and three U.S. citizen children in

11 Anaheim, California. He is self-employed as a religious teacher.

12

50. Mr. Batliwala filed a naturalization application with CIS in August

13 2001, and he successfully passed his naturalization examination on July 15, 2002.

14 He meets all other statutory requirements for naturalization. Despite numerous

15 written inquires, CIS has failed to adjudicate his application for naturalization.

16 CIS personnel informed him that his application is being delayed pending

17 completion of a "name check."

18

51. Because of CIS's failure to adjudicate his naturalization application,

19 Mr. Batliwala is unable to sponsor for lawful permanent residency his elderly,

20 ailing parents who live in India.

21

52. PlaintiffImran Chaudhry is a native and citizen of Pakistan. He lives

I

j

22 in Costa Mesa, California with his wife and two children, who are all United

I[,

23 States citizens. Mr. Chaudhry owns a small computer business. He has been a

! li

~

24 lawful permanent resident of the United States since 1999.

25

53. Mr. Chaudhry applied for naturalization in December January 2003.

26 He successfully passed his naturalization examination on January 5, 2004, and

27 meets all other statutory requirements for naturalization.

28

10

1

54. Despite Mr. Chaudhry's numerous written and in-person inquiries, his

2 filing of a request under the Freedom of Information Act, his repeated submission

3 of his fingerprints, and the intervention of his representative in Congress, the

4 Honorable Dana Rohrbacher, CIS has failed to adjudicate his application for

5 naturalization.

6

55. In an effort to expedite his naturalization application, Mr. Chaudhry

7 filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the FBI, and the agency

8 responded in writing that it has no records relating to him and that he has never

9 been "of investigatory interest to the FBI." Despite this, Mr. Chaudhry was

10 informed that his application is being delayed pending completion of a "name

11 check."

12

56. Because of CIS's failure to adjudicate his naturalization application,

13 Mr. Chaudhry has been unable to apply with the federal government for a small

14 business loan. He is also unable to sponsor for lawful permanent residency his

15 elderly father, who resides in Pakistan and suffers from a rare brain disorder that

16 requires medical treatment in the United States.

17

57. Lamia El Feky is a native and citizen of Egypt. She lives in Foothill

18 Ranch, California with her six six children, all of whom are United States citizens.

19 She is currently studying for her real estate license. She has been a lawful

20 permanent resident of the United States since 1996.

21

58. Ms. EI Feky applied for naturalization in September 2003. She

22 successfully passed her naturalization examination on February 9,2004, and meets

23 all other statutory requirements for naturalization. Despite the fact that Ms. El

24 Feky has made numerous in-person inquiries and has re-submitted her fingerprints

25 several times, CIS has failed to adjudicate her naturalization application. Ms. El

26 Feky was informed that her application is pending a "name check."

27

28

11

1

59. Because of CIS's failure to adjudicate her naturalization application,

2 Ms. EI Feky is unable to sponsor for lawful permanent residency her elderly, ailing

3 mother, who lives in Egypt.

4

60. Plaintiff Muhammad Malik is a native and citizen of Pakistan. He has

5 lived in the United States over ten years, and has been a lawful permanent resident

6 since 1999. He lives in Corona, California. He has two U.S. citizen children and

7 a long-term partner who is their mother; He runs a small used car business and

8 also worl<:s as a smog technician.

9

61. Mr. Malik filed his naturalization application in December 2003 and

10 successfully passed his naturalization examination on May 18,2004. At the

11 examination, the CIS officer asked him for additional documents, which he sent

12 the very next day.

13

62. Despite numerous written and in-person inquiries, and the

14 intervention of Mr. Malik's representatives in Congress, Senator Dianne Feinstein

15 and Representative Ken Calvert, CIS has failed to adjudicate Mr. Malik's

16 application for naturalization. Mr. Malik was informed by CIS, through his

17 congressional representatives, that his application is being delayed pending

18 completion of a "name check."

19

63. Because of CIS's failure to adjudicate his naturalization application,

20 Mr. Malik is unable to sponsor for lawful permanent residency his elderly, ailing

21 mother who lives in Pakistan.

22

64. Mustafa Osman, M.D., is a native and citizen of Sudan. He has been

23 a lawful permanent resident of the United States since 1997. He lives in Norwalk,

24 California with his wife and two children, one of whom is a United States citizen.

25 Dr. Osman was a practicing medical doctor in Sudan and now serves as a

26 community advocate for persons with disabilities at a nonprofit organization. He

27 is also training to be a diagnostic sonogram technologist.

28

12

I

65. Dr. Osman applied for naturalization in April 2004. He successfully

2 passed his naturalization examination on August 13,2004, and meets all other

3 statutory requirements for naturalization. Despite Dr. Osman's numerous in-

4 person, telephone and written inquiries, and inquiries by his representative in

·5 Congress, CIS has failed to adjudicate his application for naturalization. Dr.

6 Osman has been informed that his application is being delayed pending

7 completion of a "name check."

8

66. Plaintiff Sami Trad is a native of Kuwait and citizen of Lebanon. He

9 lives in San Gabriel, California with his wife and two children, who are all United

10 States citizens. Mr. Trad has been a lawful permanent resident of the United

II States since approximately 1991. He is a self-employed electrician and works in

12 Los Angeles County.

13

67. M. Trad applied for naturalization in August 2003. He successfully

14 passed his naturalization examination on or about February 6, 2004, and meets all

IS other statutory requirements for naturalization. Despite Mr. Trad's numerous in-

16 person inquiries, CIS has failed to adjudicate his naturalization application. Mr.

17 Trad was informed that his application is pending completion of a "name check."

18

68. Because of CIS's failure to adjudicate his application, Mr. Trad is

19 unable to sponsor for lawful permanent residency his elderly mother, who lives in

20 Lebanon, has a heart condition, and would greatly benefit from medical treatment

21 in the United States.

22 Defendants' Policies And Practices

23

69. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendants Chertoff, Emilio

24 Gonzalez and Arellano have a policy, pattern, and practice of failing to adjudicate

25 the applications for naturalization of the proposed plaintiff class within 120 days

26 of the date of naturalization examinations, because of years-long delays in the

27 processing of "name checks."

28

13

I

70. Plaintiffs are infonned and believe that Defendants Chertoff, Emilio

2 Gonzalez and Arellano have a policy, pattern, and practice of unlawfully

3 withholding and unreasonably delaying the adjudication of applications for

4 naturalization of the proposed plaintiff class, because of years-long delays in the

5 processing of "narne checks."

6

71. Plaintiffs are infonned and believe that Defendants Mueller and

7 Alberto Gonzales have a policy, pattern, and practice of unlawfully withholding

8 and unreasonably delaying the completion of "name checks," with the full

9 knowledge that CIS requires the completion of such "name checks" for

10 adjudication of,applications for naturalization of the proposed plaintiff class.

II

72. Plaintiffs are infonned and believe that Defendants have a policy,

12 pattern and practice of failing to set deadlines for completing "name checks" and

13 taking all the other reasonable steps necessary to complete the adjudication of

14 applications for naturalization of the proposed plaintiff class.

15

73. Plaintiffs are infonned and believe that Defendants Chertoff, Emilio

16 Gonzalez and Arellano have a policy, pattern and practice of requiring "name

17 checks" for adjudication of applications for naturalization of the proposed plaintiff

18 class, despite no statutory or regulatory authorization for such "name checks."

19

74. As a result of the Defendants' policies, practices, actions and

20 omissions, members of the proposed plaintiff class have suffered injury, in that

21 they have been unlawfully denied the rights and benefits of U.S. citizenship for

22 two years or more.

23

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

24

75. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all other

25 persons similarly situated pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and

26 23(b)(2). The class, as proposed by Plaintiffs, consists of:

27

All persons who have submitted or will submit applications for

naturalization to the CIS Los Angeles District OUice and its sub-

28

offices, and who have met all statutory requirements for

14

1

naturalization, and whose applications for naturalization are not

adjudicated within 120 days of the date of their initial examination.

2 76. The requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and

3
23(b)(2) are met in that the class is no numerous that joinder of all members is

4
impracticable. Counsel for Plaintiffs are aware of at least another dozen proposed

5
class members who seek the same relief as the named Plaintiffs.

6
77. There are questions oflaw and fact common to the proposed class

7

8

withholding and unreasonably delaying the completion of "name checks," with the
14
full knowledge that CIS requires the completion of such "name checks" for
15
adjudication of applications for naturalization of the proposed plaintiff class,
16
violates the Administrative Procedure Act; and (3) whether CIS and the FBI's
17
failure to set deadlines for completing "name checks" and failure to take all the
18
other reasonable steps necessary to complete the adjudication of applications for
19
naturalization of the proposed plaintiff class, violates the Administrative 20
Procedure Act.
21
78. The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the 22
proposed class. The named Plaintiffs, like all class members, have not had their
23
applications for naturalization adjudicated despite the passage of over 120 days
24
since their naturalization examinations, and they have been denied timely
25
completion of "name checks" which CIS requires for adjudication of their 26
applications; and their applications for naturalization have been unlawfully
27
withheld or unreasonably delayed on the basis of "name checks." 28
15

1

79. The named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests

2 of all members of the proposed class because they seek relief on behalf of the class

3 as a whole and have no interests antagonistic to other members of the class. The

4 named Plaintiffs are also represented by pro bono counsel, including the ACLU of

5 Southern California and the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, who have

6 extensive expertise in class action litigation regarding the rights of immigrants.

7 Finally, the Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to the class,

8 thereby making appropriate firial injunctive relief with respect to the class as a

9 whole.

10

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

11

PETITIONS FOR NATURALIZATION

12

80. Plaintiffs reallege and reassert the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth

13 fully herein.

14

81. Each of the named Plaintiffs seeks a determination by the Court that

15 he or she meets the requirements for naturalization and is to be naturalized as a

16 US. citizen without further delay. Pursuant to 8 US.c. § 1447(b), this Court

17 should exercise its authority to grant Plaintiffs' naturalization applications.

18

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

19

VIOLATIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT

20

82. Plaintiffs reallege and reassert the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth

21 fully herein.

I

22

83. The Administrative Procedure Act requires administrative agencies to

I

23 conclude matters presented to them "within a reasonable time." 5 U.S.C. § 555. A

I

24 district court reviewing agency action may "compel agency action unlawfully

25 withheld or unreasonably delayed." 5 U.S.C. § 706(1). The court also may hold

26 unlawful and set aside agency action that, inter alia, is found to be: "arbitrary,

27 capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law," 5

28 US.c. § 706(2)(A); "in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations,

16

or short of statutory right," 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C); or "without observance of

2 procedure required by law," 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(D). "Agency action" includes, in

3 relevant part, "an agency rule, order, license, sanction, relief, or the equivalent or

4 denial thereof, or failure to act." 5 U.S.C. §551(13).

5

84. The failure of Defendants Chertoff, Emilio Gonzalez and Arellano to

6· adjudicate the applications for naturalization of the proposed plaintiff class within

7 120 days of the date of naturalization examinations on the basis of "name checks,"

8 in violation of8 U.S.C. § 1446(d) and 8 C.F.R. § 335, violates the Administrative

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

10 706(2)(D).

11

85. The failure of Defendants Alberto Gonzales and Mueller to timely

12 complete "name checks," with the full knowledge that CIS requires the completion

13 of such "name checks" for adjudication of applications for naturalization of the

14 proposed plaintiff class, violates the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §

15 555(b); 5 US.C. §§ 706(1), 706(2)(A), 706(2)(C), 706(2)(D).

16

86. Defendants' failure to set deadlines for completing "name checks"

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

18 applications for naturalization of the proposed plaintiff class, in violation of 8

19 U.S.C. § 1446(d) and 8 C.F.R. § 335, violates the Administrative Procedure Act, 5

20 U.S.C. § 555(b); 5 US.c. §§ 706(1), 706(2)(A), 706(2)(C), 706(2)(D).

21

87. As a result of Defendants' actions, Plaintiffs have suffered and

22 continue to suffer injury. Declaratory and injunctive relief are therefore

23 warranted.

24

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

25

VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS CLAUSE

26

88. Plaintiffs reallege and reassert the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth

27 fully herein.

28

17

89. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the

2 government from depriving any person of life, liberty or property without due

3 process of law.

4

90. Defendants Chertoff, Emilio Gonzalez and Arellano have a pattern,

5 practice or policy of failing to adjudicate the applications for naturalization of the

6 proposed plaintiff class within 120 days of the date of naturalization examinations

7 because of delays in "name checks," in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1446(d) and 8

8 C.F.R. § 335. Defendants Alberto Gonzales and Mueller have a pattern, practice

9 or policy of failing to timely complete "name checks," with the full knowledge

10 that CIS requires the completion of such "name checks" for adjudication of

II applications for naturalization of the proposed plaintiff class. Defendants have a

12 pattern, practice or policy of failing to set deadlines for completing "name checks"

13 and to take all the otherreasonable steps necessary to complete the adjudication of

14 applications for naturalization of the proposed plaintiffclass, in violation of8

15 U.S.C. § l446(d) and 8 C.F.R. § 335. These actions by Defendants violate

16 Plaintiffs' rights to due process oflaw.

17

91. As a result of Defendants' actions, Plaintiffs have suffered and

18 continue to suffer injury. Declaratory and injunctive relief are therefore

19 warranted.
20

-
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

21

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court:

22

1. Assume jurisdiction over the matter;

23

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

24

3. Review de novo and grant the named Plaintiffs' applications for

25

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

26

4. Order Defendants to promptly adjudicate, in a time period not to

27

exceed 90 days, the currently pending applications for naturalization

28

of all members of the proposed class, other than the named Plaintiffs;

18

I

5. Order Defendants to adjudicate, within 120 days of the date ofthe

2

naturalization examination, all applications for naturalization that

3

shall be submitted in the future by members of the proposed class, as

4

required by governing law;

5

6. Order Defendants to conduct all "name checks" within 90 days of the

6

submission of naturalization applications by members ofthe proposed

7

class, in the event that Defendants have implemented or shall

8

implement a new practice or policy of conducting "name checks"

9

prior to the naturalization examination;

10

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

11

Defendants Chertoff, Emilio Gonzalez and Arellano to adjudicate

12

applications for naturalization within 120 days ofthe date of the

13

naturalization examination; (b) The failure of Defendants Alberto

14

Gonzales and Mueller to complete "name checks" within a reasonable

15

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

16

adjudicate applications for naturalization within 120 days of the date

17

of the naturalization examinations.

18

8. Award reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to the Equal

19

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

20

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

21

22 Dated: August 1,2006
23
24

ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
ACLU FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT

25

COUNCIL ON AMERICAN-ISLAMIC

RELATIONS (CAIR) - CALIFORNIA

26

27

28

By:

19

 
 • Case 2:06-cv-04791-PA

Document 18

• Filed 01/08/2007

Page 1 of 5

1 MARKD. ROSENBAU¥; SBN 59940 RANJANA NATARAJAr~.} SBN 230149

2 ACLU FOUNDATION Ot'

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

3 1616 Beverly Boulevard

Los Angeles CA 90026

4 Telephone: (213) 977-9500

Facsllnile: (213) 250-3919

5 LUCAS GUTTENTAG, SBN 90208

FILED CLERK, U S DIS1AICT COIJRT

6 CECILLIA D. WANG, SBN 187782

ACLU FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS' 7 RIGHTS PROJECT

JAN -

39 Drumm Street

8 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 343-0775

CEHl RAL DIS1
BY

CALIFO,gNIA
DE~UTY

9 Facsllnile: (415) 395-0950

a
w
ot:J
C)
-J

,1O=~ .~
11-

~t6rne)s for Plaintiffs

(r~S:e~¢~"nex!It

page

for

additional counsel) UNITED STATES

DISTRICT

COURT

:2J{ l~ ,:

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13~ . ,:-, I

:;;; ;MUSTAFA AZIZ; YOUSUF

Case No. CV 06-4791 PA

1~ ''KBHbLAOGOHDANAIL' -SKAAMFAINJlA~ KIBHRWAHAIJMA

STIPULATION OF WITHDRAWAL

15 BATLIWALA; IMRAJ'I
CHAUDHRY' LAMIA EL FEKYi.. 16 MUHAMMAb MALIl<-i MUSTAt'A

OF CLASS ALLEGATIONS AND

DISMISSAL; [PR@f65ED]ORDER

THEREON

'

OSMAN and SAMI TKAD,

17 individually and on behalf of all those

similarly situated,

18

Plaintiffs,

19

vs.

20 ALBERTO GONZALES, in his official capaci!y as Attorney General
21 of the United States; MICHAEL CHERTOFF, in his official capacity
22 as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security· EMILIO T.
23 GONZALEZ in his official capacity as Director oiu.s. Citizenship and
24 Immigration Services; JANE ARELLANO, in her official capacity
25 as Field Director of the Los Angeles District of U.S. Citizenship and'
26 ImmigI"ation Services; and ROBERT S. MUELLER, III, in his official
27 capacity as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation,

DOCKETED ON eM

28

Defendants.

JAN I 0 2007

\ BY
I

022\

• Case 2:06-cv-04791-PA

Document 18

• Filed 01/08/2007

Page 2 of 5

1 TODD GALLINGER, SBN 238666

Of Counsel

2 COUNCIL ON AMERICAN-ISLAMIC

'I;'"

RELATIONS (CAIR) - CALIFORNIA 3 2180 W. Crescent Ave., Suite F
Anaheim, CA 92801 4 Telephone: ~714) 776-1847
FacsImile: ( 14) 776-8340

T!~ .;
'I::. ;1:::
;~;:
"
pi.
r~:'

5

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

6

7 ELIZABETH STEVENS
8 Office ofImmigration Litigation Civil Division
9 United States Department of Justice 1331 Pennsylvama Avenue, N.W.
10 Washington, D.C. 20044 Telephone: (202/616-9752
11 Fax: (202) 353- 224 E-ma!l: elizabeth.stevens us 0'. ov
12 Virginia State Bar 4744

13 GEORGE S. CARDONA

Acti~ United States Attorney

14 LEO W. WEIDMAN

Assistant United States Attorney

15 Chiehfivil Division

KEV B.FINN

16 Assistant United States Attorney

Calif. Bar No. 128072

3 17 E-mail: kevin.finn@usdoj . ov Federal Buildink Suite 7 16

18

300 North Los n~e1es Street

Los Angeles, Cali ornia 90012

19

Telephone: (213) 894-6739

Fax:

894-7327

20

Attorney for Defendants

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

• Case 2:06-cv-04791-PA
1

Document 18

• Filed 01/08/2007

STIPULATION

Page 3 of 5

2

Plaintiffs hereby withdraw their class action allegations, Complaint ~~ 75-79,

3 4 5

and their requests for class-wide relief, and dismiss this case as set forth below·i:i:'
Dismissal of the complaint is proper under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(~)
because no motion for class certification has been filed, no substantive issues h~fi\t're

6 been litigated or determined, and voluntary dismissal at this stage does not bind

7 anyone other than the named plaintiffs in this action.

8

Plaintiff Ibrahim Batliwala, Yusuf Bhaghani and Sammy Trad agree to

9 dismiss their claims without prejudice. In consideration of the dismissal,

10 Defendant U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("CIS") agrees to adjudicate

11 Ibrahim Batliwala's application for citizenship within ten days of the date of entry

12 of this order. CIS intends to grant Mr. Batliwala's application and swear him in as

13 a U.S. citizen no later than February 28,2007, provided that no negative

14 information is discovered between the time of dismissal and the oath ceremony.

15 CIS also agrees to adjudicate Mr. Trad's and Mr. Bhaghani's applications for

16 citizenship within thirty days of the date of entry of this order.

17 Dated: January.2., 2007

ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

18 19

Ravn~Jla~klat.a~

20

Attorney for Plaintiff

21 Dated: January _,2007

United States Department of Justice . Office ofImmigration Litigation, Civil Division

22

23
24
25
t, 26 IT IS SO ORDERED.
27 Dated: January 2007

Elizabeth Stevens Attorney for Defendants
ORDER

28

• Case 2:06-cv-04791-PA

Document 18

• Filed 01/08/2007

Page 4 of 5

. .

1

STIPULATION

2

Plaintiffs hereby withdraw their class action allegations, Complaint ~~ 75-79,

3 and their requests for class-wide relief, and dismiss this case as set forth below.

4 Dismissal of the complaint is proper under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)

5 because no motion for class certification has been filed, no substantive issues have

6 been litigated or determined, and voluntary dismissal at this stage does not bind

7 anyone other than the named plaintiffs in this action,

8

Plaintiff Ibrahirn Batliwala, YusufBhaghani and Sammy Trad agree to

9 dismiss their claims without prejudice. In consideration of the dismissal,

10 Defendant U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("CIS") agrees to adjudicate

11 Ibrahim Batliwala's application for citizenship within ten days of the date of entry

12 of this order. CIS intends to grant Mr. Batliwala's application and swear him in as

13 a U.S. citizen no later than February 28,2007, provided that no negative

14 information is discovered between the time of dismissal and the oath ceremony.

15 CIS also agrees to adjudicate Mr. Trad's and Mr. Bhaghani's applications for

16 citizenship within thirty days ofthe date of entry of this order.

17 Dated: January ,2007

ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

18

19
20 21 Dated: January 5.,2007 22

RanJana NataraJan Attorney for Plaintiff ", United States Department of Justice Office ofImmi tion Litigation, Civil Division

23

24
25
26 IT IS SO ORDERED.
27 Dated: January_, 2007

ORDER

28

HON. PERCY ANDERSON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

• • r. Case 2:06-cv-04791-PA

Document 18

• Filed 01/08/2007

Page 5 of 5

. '..

PROOF OF SERVICE

2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

3

I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am

over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is

4 1616 Beverly Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90026. 1 am employed in the

office of a member of the bar of tliis court at whose direction the servIce was

5 made.

6 On January 5,2007, I served the foregoing document:

7

STIPULATION OF WITHDRAWAL OF CLASS

8

ALLEGATIONS AND DISMISSAL; [PROPOSED) ORDER

THEREON

'

9

Qy emailing electronic copies to defendants' counsel Kevin B. Finn and

'

10 Elizabeth Stevens, and by placing true and correct copies of said document in

the United States mail, with first-class postage thereon fully pre-paid, addressed

11 as follows:

12 Kevin B. Finn Assistant U.S. Attorney
13 Federal Building, Suite 7516 300 N. Los Angeles St.
14 Los Angeles" CA 90012 Tel: (213) 8~4-6739
15 Fax: (213) 894-7327 Email: kevin.finn@usdoj.gov
16

Elizabeth Stevens Office ofImrnigration Litigation Civil Division U.S. Dept. of Justice 1331 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20044 Tel: (201) 616-9752 Fax: (202) 353-7224 Email: elizabeth.stevens@usdoj.gov

17
I am readily familiar with the business' practice of collection and 18 processing correspondence for mailing with die United States Postal Service. I
know that the correspondence is deposited with the United States Postal Service 19 on the same day this declaration was executed in the ordinary course of
business. I know that the envelope was sealed and, with postage thereon fully 20 prepaid, placed for collection and mailing on this date, followmg ordinary
busmess practices, in the United States mail at Los Angeles, California.
21
Executed on January 5, 2007, at Los Angeles, California.
22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 
 ACLU News: Southern Californians Demand Citizenship After Excessive Delays

Page 1 of 2

Southern Californians Demand Citizenship After Excessive Delays
Along with the ACLU and CAIR, Ten Area Residents File a Class Action Lawsuit
Tuesday, August 1, 2006
Read the Complaint (862 kb)
LOS ANGELES - On behalf of a U.S. military veteran, a medical doctor, small business owners and others who have been illegally denied citizenship, the ACLU of Southern California, the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project and the Council on American-Islamic Relations filed a class action lawsuit today against the federal government.
"These are people who have spent virtually their whole adult lives in this country and who want to pledge their allegiance to the United States and participate fully in our society as U.S. citizens," said ACLU/SC attorney Ranjana Natarajan. "There is no reason why anyone should have to wait so long for citizenship after meeting all the requirements."
The lawsuit, which was filed in federal district court in Los Angeles against high ranking officials in the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, seeks citizenship for ten legal permanent residents who have satisfied all the criteria for citizenship, but whose applications have not been acted upon for two years or more. The lawsuit also seeks a policy change so that no other residents are forced to wait for years after meeting all naturalization requirements.
U.S. immigration law clearly states that legal residents who have fulfilled all the requirements including passing a naturalization exam and interview must be granted or denied citizenship within 120 days of their naturalization examinations.
For Irvine resident and Air Force veteran Mustafa Aziz such delays have forced him to wait almost seven times the legal maximum after completing the entire naturalization process.
"Despite serving in the U.S. Air Force, I have been waiting for my citizenship for more than two years," said Aziz, who with his family escaped war torn Afghanistan and came to the U.S. as a one-year old. "It was important to me to serve my country, but now I want to do more and without citizenship I cannot contribute my fullest to our society. I am part of this lawsuit because I hope the government will mend its broken system so this does not happen to anyone else."
According to the lawsuit: "Despite the fact that Plaintiffs have been waiting for over two years since their naturalization interviews, Defendants have failed to provide any time frames by which they will adjudicate Plaintiffs' naturalization applications. Defendants, through their callous inaction, have

http://www.aclu-sc.org/News/Releases/2006/101998/?printer_friendly=1

8/27/2007

ACLU News: Southern Californians Demand Citizenship After Excessive Delays

Page 2 of 2

deprived Plaintiffs of the rights and benefits of U.S. citizenship."
The purported reason for the delay is a background check known as a "name check," for which neither the CIS nor the FBI imposes any deadlines for completion.
“Longtime residents who have paid their dues and are contributing to our country deserve a timely decision as required by law,” said Cecillia Wang, senior attorney for the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project. “Our clients are among the hundreds or thousands of longtime residents around the country who have been waiting patiently for years. The time for fixing the system is long overdue.”
The Southern California residents who are part of this class action lawsuit represent dozens of other people throughout the region who are in similar positions.
"Regardless of whether this delay is due to incompetence or discrimination, the ordeal for law-abiding and patriotic residents has to end,” said Hussam Ayloush, executive director of the Southern California CAIR chapter. “The delay is causing a lot of distress to many Americans.”

This is the web site of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California and the ACLU Foundation of Southern California. Learn more about the distinction between these two components of the ACLU. Copyright 2007 The ACLU of Southern California.

http://www.aclu-sc.org/News/Releases/2006/101998/?printer_friendly=1

8/27/2007

 
 CM/ECF - California Central District - Docket Report

Page 1 of 9

CLOSED, MANADR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (Western Division - Los Angeles)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:06-cv-04791-PA

Mustafa Aziz et al v. Alberto Gonzales et al Assigned to: Judge Percy Anderson Cause: 08:1446 Application for Naturalization Hearing

Date Filed: 08/01/2006 Date Terminated: 01/08/2007 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 890 Other Statutory Actions Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Plaintiff
Mustafa Aziz TERMINATED: 10/03/2006

represented by Cecillia D Wang ACLU Foundation Immigrants Rights Project 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111 415-343-0775 Email: cwang@aclu.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lucas Guttentag ACLU Foundation Immigrants Rights Project 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111 415-343-0775 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark D Rosenbaum ACLU Foundation of Southern California 1616 Beverly Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90026-5752 213-977-9500 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ranjana Natarajan ACLU Foundation of Southern California 1616 Beverly Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90026 213-977-9500 Email: rnatarajan@aclu-sc.org

https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?817953372862771-L_353_0-1

9/10/2007

CM/ECF - California Central District - Docket Report

Page 2 of 9

Plaintiff Yousuf Bhaghani
Plaintiff Samina Khwaja TERMINATED: 10/03/2006

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Cecillia D Wang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lucas Guttentag (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark D Rosenbaum ACLU Foundation of Southern California 1616 Beverly Boulevard P O Box 26907 Los Angeles, CA 90026-5752 213-977-9500 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ranjana Natarajan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Cecillia D Wang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lucas Guttentag (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark D Rosenbaum ACLU Foundation of Southern California 1616 Beverly Blvd P O Box 26907 Los Angeles, CA 90026-5752 213-977-9500 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ranjana Natarajan (See above for address)

https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?817953372862771-L_353_0-1

9/10/2007

CM/ECF - California Central District - Docket Report

Page 3 of 9

Plaintiff Kolood Al-Kafaji TERMINATED: 10/03/2006
Plaintiff Ibrahim Batliwala
Plaintiff Imran Chaudhry TERMINATED: 10/03/2006

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Cecillia D Wang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lucas Guttentag (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark D Rosenbaum (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ranjana Natarajan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Cecillia D Wang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lucas Guttentag (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark D Rosenbaum (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ranjana Natarajan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Cecillia D Wang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?817953372862771-L_353_0-1

9/10/2007

CM/ECF - California Central District - Docket Report

Page 4 of 9

Plaintiff Lamia El Feky TERMINATED: 10/03/2006
Plaintiff Muhammad Malik TERMINATED: 10/03/2006

Lucas Guttentag (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark D Rosenbaum (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ranjana Natarajan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Cecillia D Wang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lucas Guttentag (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark D Rosenbaum (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ranjana Natarajan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Cecillia D Wang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lucas Guttentag (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark D Rosenbaum (See above for address)

https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?817953372862771-L_353_0-1

9/10/2007

CM/ECF - California Central District - Docket Report

Page 5 of 9

Plaintiff Mustafa Osman TERMINATED: 10/03/2006
Plaintiff Sami Trad individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ranjana Natarajan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Cecillia D Wang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lucas Guttentag (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark D Rosenbaum (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ranjana Natarajan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Cecillia D Wang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lucas Guttentag (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark D Rosenbaum (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ranjana Natarajan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?817953372862771-L_353_0-1

9/10/2007

CM/ECF - California Central District - Docket Report

Page 6 of 9

V. Defendant Alberto Gonzales in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States
Defendant Michael Chertoff in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security
Defendant Emilio T Gonzalez in his official capacity as Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
Defendant Jane Arellano in her official capacity as Field Director of the Los Angeles District of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
Defendant Robert S Mueller, III in his official capacity as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation

represented by Kevin B Finn AUSA - Office of US Attorney Civil Division 300 North Los Angeles Street, Suite 7516 Los Angeles, CA 90012 213-894-6739 Email: USACAC.Civil@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kevin B Finn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kevin B Finn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kevin B Finn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kevin B Finn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 08/01/2006
08/01/2006 08/01/2006

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT against defendants Alberto Gonzales, Michael Chertoff, Emilio T Gonzalez, Jane Arellano, Robert S Mueller, III. (No Filing fee required) filed by plaintiffs Samina Khwaja, Kolood Al-Kafaji, Ibrahim Batliwala, Imran Chaudhry, Mustafa Aziz, Lamia El Feky, Muhammad Malik, Mustafa Osman, Sami Trad, Yousuf Bhaghani.(jag, ) (Entered: 08/07/2006)

FAX number for Attorney Ranjana Natarajan, Mark D Rosenbaum is 213-2503919. (jag, ) (Entered: 08/07/2006)

FAX number for Attorney Lucas Guttentag, Cecillia D Wang is 415-395-0950.

https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?817953372862771-L_353_0-1

9/10/2007

CM/ECF - California Central District - Docket Report

Page 7 of 9

08/01/2006 08/01/2006 08/01/2006 08/01/2006 08/07/2006 08/24/2006
08/24/2006
08/24/2006
08/24/2006
08/24/2006

(jag, ) (Entered: 08/07/2006)
2 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiffs Samina Khwaja, Kolood AlKafaji, Ibrahim Batliwala, Imran Chaudhry, Mustafa Aziz, Lamia El Feky, Muhammad Malik, Mustafa Osman, Sami Trad, Yousuf Bhaghani. (jag, ) (Entered: 08/07/2006)
3 STATEMENT of Related Case(s) filed by plaintiffs Samina Khwaja, Kolood AlKafaji, Ibrahim Batliwala, Imran Chaudhry, Mustafa Aziz, Lamia El Feky, Muhammad Malik, Mustafa Osman, Sami Trad, Yousuf Bhaghani. Related Case (s): n/a (jag, ) (Entered: 08/07/2006)
4 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF ADR PILOT PROGRAM filed.(jag, ) (Entered: 08/07/2006)
Summons Issued re Complaint - (Discovery),[1] as to Alberto Gonzales, Michael Chertoff, Emilio T Gonzalez. (bg, ) (Entered: 08/07/2006)
5 STANDING ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson: This action has been assigned to the calendar of Judge Percy Anderson. All counsel are ordered to familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the Central District of California. See document for further details. (gk, ) (Entered: 08/10/2006)
6 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiffs upon Emilio T. Gonzales, in his official capacity as Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, served on 8/2/2006, answer due 10/1/2006. The Summons and Complaint were served by personal, by Federal statute. Service accepted by Jonathan Katz, Associate Counsel, authorized to accept service. Original Summons not returned. (gk, ) (Entered: 08/25/2006)
7 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiffs upon Michael Chertoff, in his official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, served on 8/2/2006, answer due 10/1/2006. The Summons and Complaint were served by personal, by Federal statute. Service accepted by Jonathan Katz, Associate Counsel, authorized to accept service. Original Summons not attached. (gk, ) (Entered: 08/25/2006)
8 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiffs upon Jane Arellano, in her official capacity as Field Director of the Los Angeles District of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, served on 8/2/2006, answer due 10/1/2006. The Summons and Complaint were served by personal service, by Federal statute. Service accepted by Jonathan Katz, Associate Counsel, authorized to accept srevice. Original Summons not attached. (gk, ) (Entered: 08/25/2006)
9 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiffs upon Alberto Gonzales, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States, served on 8/2/2006, answer due 10/1/2006. The Summons and Complaint were served by personal service, by Federal statute. Service accepted by Genoveve Ortega, Legal Clerk, authorized to accept service on behalf of U.S. Attorney. Original Summons not returned. (gk, ) Modified on 8/25/2006 (gk, ). (Entered: 08/25/2006)
10 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiffs upon Robert S. Mueller, III served

https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?817953372862771-L_353_0-1

9/10/2007

CM/ECF - California Central District - Docket Report

Page 8 of 9

10/03/2006 10/18/2006 11/01/2006 11/03/2006 11/28/2006 12/11/2006
12/14/2006 01/08/2007

on 8/3/2006, answer due 10/2/2006. The Summons and Complaint were served by substituted service, by State statute. Service accepted by Deno "Doe," hispanic male, 40 years old, black hair, brown eyes, 5 feet 8 inches, 165 pounds, person in charge and by first class mail on 8/3/2006. Original Summons not returned. (gk, ) (Entered: 08/25/2006)
11 STIPULATION AND ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson that the claims of Mustafa Aziz, Muhammad Malik, Lamia El Feky, Imran Chaudhry, Mustafa Osman, Kolood Al-Kafaji, and Samina Omar Khwaja only, are dismissed without prejudice, with each party to bear its own costs and fees, including attorney fees.(gk, ) (Entered: 10/04/2006)
12 STIPULATION to Extend Time for Defendants to Answer; ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson that Defendants Alberto Gonzales; Michael Chertoff; Emilio T Gonzalez; Jane Arellano; Robert S Mueller, III shall respond to the Complaint on or before 11/1/2006. (jp) (Entered: 10/19/2006)
14 ANSWER to Complaint [1] filed by Federal Defendants Alberto Gonzales, Michael Chertoff, Emilio T. Gonzalez, Jane Arellano, Robert S. Mueller, III. (gk, ) (Entered: 11/06/2006)
13 SCHEDULING MEETING OF COUNSEL by Judge Percy Anderson: Set Hearings: Scheduling Conference set for 12/11/2006 10:30 AM before Judge Percy Anderson. Counsel shall meet at least 21 days in advance of the Scheduling Conference to prepare a jointly signed report for the court to be submitted no less than 14 days before the Scheduling Conference. See document for details.(gk, ) (Entered: 11/03/2006)
15 JOINT REPORT of Rule 26(f)initial meeting Discovery Plan filed; estimated length of trial 4 to 5 days. (et) (Entered: 12/01/2006)
16 MINUTES OF Scheduling Conference held before Judge Percy Anderson: Plaintiffs are ordered to show cause, in writing, why their class allegations should not be stricken for failure to timely file a Motion for Class Certification; Set Deadlines: Response to Order to Show Cause due by 1/8/2007. The Court further orders the parties to show cause, in writing, no later than 1/8/2007, why this matter should not be remanded with specific instructions directing CIS to complete the remaining named Petitioners' applications for naturalization, including issuance of certificates of naturalization if appropriate, within 60 days of the remand. In their response to the order to show cause, Defendants shall address why the Court should not order that all necessary background checks for the Petitioners be completed in a timely manner, so as to permit adjudication of the applications within 60 days. Court Reporter: Bridget Montero. (gk, ) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
19 Mail Returned addressed to Mark D. Rosenbaum, ACLU Foundation of Southern California re 13 Scheduling Meeting of Counsel, undeliverable mail, attempted - not known. (gk, ) (Entered: 01/12/2007)
18 STIPULATION AND ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson that Plaintiffs withdraw their class action allegations, Complaint paragraphs 75-79, and their requests for class-wide relief, and dismiss this case as set forth below under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(e). Plaintiffs Ibrahim Batliwala, Yusuf

https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?817953372862771-L_353_0-1

9/10/2007

CM/ECF - California Central District - Docket Report

Page 9 of 9

01/09/2007 01/24/2007
02/26/2007

Bhaghani and Sammy Trad agree to dismiss their claims without prejudice. Defendant U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service ("CIS") agrees to adjudicate Ibrahim Batliwala's application for citizenship within ten days of the date of entry of this order. CIS intends to grant Mr. Batliwala's application and swear him in as a U.S. citizen no later than 2/28/2007, provided that no negative information is discovered between the time of dismissal and the oath ceremony. CIS also agrees to adjudicate Mr. Trad's and Mr. Bhaghani's applications for citizenship within 30 days of the date of entry of this order. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.)(gk, ) (Entered: 01/10/2007)
17 TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings held on 12/11/06. Court Reporter: Bridget R. Montero. (dbu, ) (Entered: 01/09/2007)
20 STIPULATION AND ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson that on or before 2/24/2007, Plaintiffs may file an Application for Attorney Fees with the Court, and a Notice of Application to the Clerk to Tax Costs and lodge a Bill of Costs with the Clerk of the Court. (gk, ) (Entered: 01/25/2007)
21 STIPULATION Re Settlement of Attorney Fees and Costs. (gk, ) (Entered: 03/12/2007)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

09/10/2007 10:36:59

PACER Login: hs0328

Client Code: ddalton

Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 2:06-cv-04791-PA

Billable Pages: 5

Cost:

0.40

https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?817953372862771-L_353_0-1

9/10/2007