IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIKHAIL IGNATYEV, NATALIYA PETROVNA DEMIDCHIK on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated,
v.
MICHAEL CHERTOFF, in his official Capacity as SecretaryofHomeland Security, : MICHAEL MUKASEY, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States, ROBERT S. MUELLER, in his official capacity as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, EMILIO T. GONZALEZ, in his official capacity as Director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and EVANGELIA KLAPAKIS, in her official capacity as Acting District Director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Philadelphia District Office.

Civ. Action No. - - - - - - -
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. Plaintiffs are lawful permanent residents of the United States who have lived in the United States for many years. Plaintiffs wish to become U.S. citizens and long ago submitted naturalization applications to United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS"), the responsible federal agency.l Their naturalization applications have not been adjudicated, however, despite the passage of over six months since the dates of submission, because each of their applications is awaiting completion of an "FBI name check," a background check that the FBI conducts on behalf of USCIS.

1 In all statutory and regulatory provisions cited in this Complaint, the term "Service" refers to the USCIS. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(34); 6 U.S.c. § 271.

2. Plaintiffs seek to pledge their allegiance to the United States and to participate fully in our society as United States citizens. Having qualified to do so after years of working in the United States and contributing to their communities, Plaintiffs seek only what the law provides, which is a final decision on their naturalization applications within the reasonable timelines required by law.
3. Defendant USCIS officials Gonzalez and Klapakis and the Secretary of Homeland Security are responsible for the naturalization process. Defendants Mueller and Mukasey are responsible for the FBI name check and other background checks conducted in the course of the naturalization process.
4. In November 2002, USCIS drastically altered the naturalization procedure by requiring a vastly expanded FBI name check to be conducted on every application, even though it is not required by either statute or regulation. The FBI implemented the expanded FBI name check in a manner that has caused systemic, unnecessary and prolonged delays in the naturalization process. As a result of Defendants' policies and practices, the unwarranted and cumbersome new FBI name check procedure has resulted in months-long and even years-long delays in naturalization adjudication for Plaintiffs and the proposed class.
5. USCIS's own Ombudsman has stated that, as implemented by Defendants, the FBI name check used in naturalization applications is of questionable value in detecting persons who may pose a threat to security. Nevertheless, USCIS uses the FBI name check without imposing any deadlines for completion. In requiring FBI name checks and tolerating systemic and prolonged delays during those name checks, both USCIS and the FBI have acted with complete disregard for Congress's plain directive
2

that USCIS should complete the processing of naturalization applications within six months from the date of submission. Through their insistence on FBI name checks, USCIS and the FBI have unreasonably delayed the processing of the naturalization applications of Plaintiffs and the proposed class members, and USCIS has unlawfully withheld final adjudication of these applications.
6. Defendants' unlawful conduct has deprived Plaintiffs of the privileges of United States citizenship. Plaintiffs cannot vote, serve on juries, expeditiously sponsor their immediate relatives living abroad for permanent residence, receive business and education loans and other benefits reserved for citizens, participate in the Visa Waiver Program, or travel abroad and return to the United States without fear of exclusion from this country. Plaintiffs' experiences are typical of tens of thousands of other naturalization applicants around the country who have suffered unreasonable and unlawful delays in the naturalization process because of long-pending FBI name checks.
7. Plaintiffs respectfully request, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, that the Court certify the proposed class, enter judgment in favor of the proposed class on all claims, and grant the relief requested herein. Specifically, Plaintiffs request that the Court require the Defendants to adjudicate their applications for naturalization within the time periods prescribed by law, and declare that the Defendants' actions violate the naturalization statue and regulations, laws governing administrative agency action, and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 8. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.c. § 701, et. seq., the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361, and 28
3

US.c. §1331, which vest the United States district courts with jurisdiction over civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.
9. Venue properly lies with this district pursuant to 28 US.c. § 1391 (b), as the named plaintiffs reside within this judicial district and a substantial part of the activities complained of occurred within this judicial district.
THE PARTIES 10. The Named Plaintiffs and proposed class representatives are Mik.~ail Ignatyev and Nataliya Petrovna Demidchik, both ofwhom reside within the City of Philadelphia, in the State of Pennsylvania and the United States of America. 11. Defendant Michael Chertoffis the Secretary of Homeland Security, which encompasses USCIS. He is charged with "[a]l1 authorities and functions of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to administer and enforce the immigration laws." 8 C.F.R. § 2.1; 8 US.C. § 1103(a). He is sued in his official capacity. 12. Defendant Michael Mukasey is the Attorney General of the United States. He shares responsibility with Defendant Chertoff for administering and enforcing the nation's immigration laws. The Attorney General is the head of the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ"), which encompasses the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He is sued in his official capacity. 13. Defendant Robert Mueller is the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). He is charged with administering the FBI's duties to conduct investigations in connection with citizenship applications under review by USCIS, including conducting FBI name checks. He is sued in his official capacity.
4

14. Defendant Emilio Gonzalez is the Director of USCIS. He is charged with administering the immigration laws ofthe United States, including the processing and adjudication of citizenship applications. He is sued in his official capacity.
IS. Defendant Evangelia Klapakis is the Acting District Director of the USCIS Philadelphia District Office. She is sued in her official capacity.
STATUTORY AND REGULATORY SCHEME 16. The United States Constitution grants Congress the power to "establish a Uniform Rule of Naturalization." Art. 1. § 8, cl. 4. Congress delegated authority for naturalization to the Attorney General. See 8 U.S.c. § 1421(a); Pub. L. No. 101-649, Tit. IV, 104 Stat. 4978, S038-48 (Nov. 29, 1990). The Attorney General, in tum, delegated responsibility for naturalization to the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). 8 C.F.R. § 100.2(a); 28 C.F.R. Pt. lOS. Since the abolition of the INS in 2002, USCIS has been the federal agency responsible for processing and adjudication of naturalization applications. See Homeland Security Act of2002, Pub. L. No. 107-296, §471, 116 Stat. 213S, 220S (codified at 6 U.S.C. § 291(a» (transferring authority for immigration enforcement and services from former Immigration and Naturalization Service to new Department of Homeland Security). 17. In order to apply for naturalization, a lawful permanent resident must file an application for naturalization with USCIS. 8 U.S.C. § 144S(a), (b); 8 C.F.R. §§ 316.4, 334.1, 334.2. 18. USCIS has a policy of processing naturalization applications in chronological order, based upon date of receipt of the application and fee. In accordance with this policy, when USCIS receives a naturalization application and fee, USCIS grants
S

the applicant a "priority date" that is based on the date of receipt. INS Operation Instruction 103.2(q), available at Operations Instructions of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (Matthew Bender, 2007) (Lexis Immigration Library, Operations Instructions of the INS File).
19. Before a person may be naturalized, USCIS may conduct or waive a "personal investigation" of the applicant. 8 U.S.C. § 1446(a). By regulation, USCIS must also complete a "criminal background check." 8 C.F.R. §§ 335.1, 335.2.
20. Since 1997, Congress has also required that a "criminal background investigation" be conducted on each applicant for citizenship. Pub. L. 105-119, Title I, 111 Stat. 2440, 2448-49 (1997); 8 C.F.R. § 335.2(b). Congress did not specify what such an investigation should entail.
21. In March 1998, to implement the requirement of a criminal background check, the INS (USCIS' s predecessor agency) promulgated a proposed rule for notice and public comment. See Requiring Completion of Criminal Background Checks Before Final AdjUdication of Naturalization Applications, 63 Fed. Reg. 12979 (Mar. 17, 1998). After receiving public comment, INS promulgated a final regulation found at 8 C.F.R. § 335.2(b) to implement the 1997 law.
22. Under 8 C.F.R. § 335.2(b), the FBI performs a criminal background check on each naturalization applicant. This criminal background check involves a check of the applicant's fingerprints against FBI databases to confirm whether or not the applicant has an administrative or criminal record. 8 C.F.R. § 335.2(b). These criminal background checks are usually completed within days ifnot hours.
6

23. Upon information and belief, although 8 C.F.R. § 335.2(b) defines the "criminal background check" to include only a fingerprint records check, USCIS requires two other security checks: a name check through the Interagency Border Inspection System (IBIS) database and the FBI name check.
24. After the "criminal background check" is completed pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 335.2(b), USCIS schedules a naturalization examination, at which an applicant meets with a USCIS examiner who is authorized to ask questions and take testimony. 8 C.F.R. § 335.2(a). The examination typically includes questions testing the applicant's English literacy and basic knowledge ofthe history and government of the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 335.2(c). Applicants with a medical disability that prevents them from learning English and lor civics may apply for a waiver of the citizenship examination. 8 C.F.R. § 312.1
25. The USCIS examiner must determine whether to grant or deny the naturalization application. 8 U.S.c. § 1446(d). Naturalization is not discretionary. USCIS must grant a naturalization application if the applicant has complied with all requirements for naturalization. 8 C.F.R. § 335.3. USCIS must make a final determination on every naturalization application, either at the time of the examination or, at the latest, within 120 days after the date of the examination. 8 C.F.R. § 335.3.
26. Once an application is granted, USCIS schedules the applicant for an oath ceremony at which he or she is sworn in as a United States citizen.
27. IfUSCIS does not issue a decision within 120 days of the examination, an applicant may file suit in district court under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). That statute confers jurisdiction upon the district court in the district in which the applicant resides, and it
7

allows the court either to determine the matter (i.e., grant or deny citizenship) or to remand with appropriate instructions to USCIS to determine the matter. A primary purpose of that statute, enacted in 1990, was to decrease backlogs in the naturalization process and reduce waiting times for naturalization applicants. H.R. Rep. No. 101-187, at 8 (1989); 135 Congo Rec. H4539-02, H4542 (1989) (statement of Rep. Morrison).
28. In addition, 8 U.S.C. § 1571(b) states, "It is the sense of Congress that the processing of an immigration benefit application should be completed not later than 180 days after the initial date of filing ofthe application ...." Naturalization applications are among the "immigration benefit applications" included within this provision. This provision, along with 8 U.S.c. § 1571(a), § 1572, and § 1573, makes clear Congress's intent to eliminate persistent backlogs in the processing of immigration benefit applications. Moreover, Congress has defined the term "backlog" in the statue as "the period oftime in excess of 180 days that such application has been pending before the Immigration and Naturalizations Service." 8 U.S.C. § 1572(1).
29. Section 1571(b) provides the statutory guideline and "rule of reason" for determining whether naturalization applications are being processed in a timely manner. Under the most straightforward reading of8 U.S.C. § 1571(b), all naturalization applications that are not finally adjudicated within 180 days of the date of submission are presumptively unreasonably delayed.
USCIS EXPANSION OF "FBI NAME CHECKS" 30. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that USCIS may have requested "FBI name checks" for naturalization applicants prior to 2002. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that before 2002, these FBI name checks may have involved searches of the
8

applicant's name against an FBI database containing the names of persons "of interest" to the FBI i.e., criminal suspects, targets of investigations, and others suspected of wrongdoing.
31. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that beginning in November 2002, USeIS dramatically altered the naturalization procedure by expanding the scope of the FBI name check, by requiring the FBI to search applicants' names against additional databases.
32. The expanded FBI name check used by USeIS is not part of the "criminal background check" that is required by Public Law 10S-119, tit. I, 111 Stat. 2448-49 (Nov. 26, 1997), and 8 § C.F.R. 33S.2.
33. When it expanded the FBI name check requirement for naturalization in November 2002, USCIS did not promulgate a proposed rule or give notice and an opportunity for public comment on the rule, as it had done in 1998 when implementing the criminal background check requirement.
34. The expanded FBI name check was a substantive departure from prior USeIS policy because it imposed a new requirement in naturalization procedure not based on statute or regulations and because it has had a substantial adverse effect on applicants for naturalization by causing significant delays in adjudication. As such, the Administrative Procedure Act, S U.S.C. § 701 et seq., required USCIS to promulgate a proposed rule, provide a notice and comment period, and thereafter promulgate a final rule prior to enacting the November 2002 expanded FBI name check.
3S. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the expanded FBI name check consists of a search of a person's name through the FBI's criminal and non-criminal files
9

in its Central Records System. The Central Records System contains administrative, applicant, criminal, personnel, and other FBI files. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that, since November 2002, the expanded FBI name check on naturalization applications includes an FBI search of not only "main files" for persons "of interest," but also "references files" for any person or entity that is mentioned in the "main files," including innocent persons who are not suspected of any wrongdoing, but who have come into contact with the FBI, including witnesses, interviewees, crime victims, and persons who have applied for security clearances for professional reasons.
36. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that since the November 2002
expansion, uscrs does not adjudicate applications for naturalization until it receives the
results of a completed name check from the FBI. 37. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that USCIS and the FBI have entered
into written agreements regarding the conduct of FBI name checks on, among others, applicants for naturalization, and that in these agreements neither USCIS nor the FBI impose any time limits for the completion of name checks.
38. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that from time to time and under certain circumstances, USCIS requests the FBI to expedite the name checks of certain individuals, including certain applicants for naturalization.
39. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that beginning in April 2006, in response to a deluge of lawsuits around the country brought by frustrated naturalization applicants pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), USCIS implemented a new policy of refusing to schedule naturalization examinations for those applicants whose FBI name checks were not completed. USCIS has stated that an express purpose of this policy change was
10

to preclude litigation under 8 U.S.c. § 1447(b) by those who have passed naturalization examinations and are awaiting final adjudication of their naturalization applications. As a result of this change in policy, which appears to be an explicit effort to thwart Congress's intent to provide delayed naturalization applicants with recourse to the federal courts, the applications of substantial numbers of class members have been umeasonably delayed, and naturalization examinations have not been scheduled because of pending FBI name checks.
40. FBI name checks are now the cause of systemic, prolonged delays in the processing of applications for naturalization. In both 2006 and 2007, the USCIS Ombudsman - the individual charged by Congress with providing recommendations on improving USCIS services and operations - declared that name checks "significantly delay adjudication of immigration benefits for many customers, hinder backlog reduction efforts, and may not achieve their intended security objectives." Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report 2006, at 23 (June 29,2006) (hereinafter "2006 Report"), available at http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/ CISOmbudsman_AnnualReport_2006.pdf; Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report 2007, at 37 (June 11,2007) (hereinafter "2007 Report"), available at http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOMB_Annual_Report_2007.pdf.
41. In the most recent report, the Ombudsman declared that "FBI name checks may be the single biggest obstacle to the timely and efficient delivery of immigration benefits" and that the delays are getting worse, not better. 2007 Report at 37. The report noted that as of May 2007, over 329,000 USCIS name checks were pending, with 64 percent of those cases (over 211,000) pending more than 90 days, and 32 percent (almost
11

107,000) pending more than one year. Id. at 37. The 2007 report also found that the problem of long-pending name checks had worsened in the preceding year. !d.
42. The Ombudsman also questioned the value of FBI name checks in accomplishing their stated purpose, which is to detect persons who should be denied immigration benefits because they pose a danger or threat to security. In response to USeIS's claims of effectiveness, the Ombudsman declared that "most, if not all, of the problem cases that would result in an eventual denial of benefits also can be revealed by the other more efficient, automated criminal and security checks that USeIS initiates." 2007 Report at 41.
43. Moreover, the Ombudsman "agree[d] with the assessment of many case workers and supervisors at USeIS 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." 2007 Report at 40. In further acknowledgment of the limited utility of name checks, the Ombudsman noted that "[n]ame checks are not conducted 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." 2007 Report at 38.
44. In addition, "[t]o date, the Ombudsman has been unable to ascertain from USeIS the total number of actual problem cases that the agency discovered exclusively as a result of the FBI name check." 2007 Report at 41. Neither USeIS nor the FBI has ever shown that the FBI name check has led to the detection of a national security threat posed by a naturalization applicant that would not have been discovered independently
12

through the fingerprint records check or IBIS database check, both of which are routinely completed within minutes or days and result in no delays in naturalization.
FACTS AS TO NAMED PLAINTIFFS Mikhail Ignatyev
45. Plaintiff Mikhail Ignatyev, native of the Ukraine and citizen of the Russian Federation, is 60 years old. He arrived in the United States with his wife AlIa Ignatyeva in April 1999 as public interest parolees under a law passed by Congress to assist certain nationals of fonner Soviet republics who faced long standing persecution because of their religion. Mr. Ignatyev and Ms. Ignatyeva qualified for this status because Ms. Ignatyeva had suffered persecution in the fonner Soviet Union because ofher Jewish faith and ethnicity.
46. The couple lives in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Mr. Ignatyev was employed for many years as an assembler by Elmar Window Fashions. Due to ill health, he has ceased working.
47. Mr. Ignatyev became a lawful pennanent resident ("LPR") on April 28, 2000, and filed a naturalization application with USCIS on March 29, 2006. This was also the priority date issued to him by USCIS. He was fingerprinted in connection with his application on May 6, 2006, at the Application Support Center.
48. Mr. Ignatyev's wife was naturalized as a citizen of the United States on March 16,2005.
49. Shortly after his application to naturalize was filed, Mr. Ignatyev was diagnosed with prostate cancer. Following intense chemotherapy treatment, his condition
13

is now in remission. However, the ordeal has left him severely depressed and afraid for his health.
50. At this time, Mr. Ignatyev remains in poor mental health stemming from his cancer and cancer treatments and is unable to work. As a result, he and his wife are in financial straits because her income alone is insufficient to support them. Mr. Ignatyev has waited to be scheduled for an examination in connection with his naturalization application fei almost two years. Upon information lli'1d belief, USCIS has delayed his examination because FBI has not completed Mr. Ignatyev's FBI name check.
51. Mr. Ignatyev has been prejudiced by the long delay in the adjudication of his naturalization application in several ways. First, in this election year, where interest in Presidential candidates has reached record levels, he wishes very much to participate in the voting process to the extent he is able. Second, if Mr. Ignatyev were a United States citizen, he would qualify for federal- and state-funded benefits that would provide critical supplemental income and health care benefits. However, because of the long delay in his naturalization, he is unable to apply for those benefits. Citizenship will allow him the peace of mind to know that he will be entitled to receive medical benefits that will cover the cost of his treatments and keep him in good health for years to come.
Petrovna Demidchik 52. PlaintiffNataliya Petrovna Demidchik, a native of the Ukraine and citizen of the Russian Federation, arrived in the United States on August 17,2000, as a lawful permanent resident on a petition filed by her daughter Olga Demidchik under § 204(a)(1)(A)(i), which allows United States citizens to sponsor immediate relatives,
14

including parents, to join them here. Ms. Demidchik was 76 years old at the time of her arrival and a widow.
53. Ms. Demidchik lives in Philadelphia. She is 83 years old and disabled, suffering from heart disease, impaired memory, poor concentration, depression, chronic pain, hypertension, vertigo, and headaches. She is financially supported by her daughter and currently receives Medicaid.
54. Ms. Demidchik regularly attends an adult daycare center where she participates in various daily activities in an attempt to remain physically and mentally active.
55. Ms. Demidchik submitted a naturalization application on August 12,2005. 56. On or about December 16, 2005, Ms. Demidchik received a letter from CIS advising her that she would be examined in connection with her application to naturalize on January 30,2006. However, she later received a letter from the Service dated January 11, 2006, informing her that the appointment had been cancelled "due to unforeseen circumstances." No further correspondence has been received from the Service regarding her application. 57. Ms. Demidchik has waited to be scheduled for an examination in connection with her naturalization application for over two years. Upon information and belief, USeIS has delayed Ms. Demidchik's naturalization examination because her FBI name check has not yet been completed. 58. Ms. Demidchik has been prejudiced by the long delay in the adjudication of her naturalization. First, the delay in her naturalization has caused her great mental distress. She believed that when she came to America, she was coming here for the rest
15

of her life. She also believes it is the duty of every decent person to apply for citizenship and to participate in the fabric of the country in which they live. She desperately wants to achieve United States citizenship before she dies
59. Second, Ms. Demidchik is also very keen to participate in the election process in this country but has been prevented from participating fully because of Defendants' policies and practices of delay. In the past, she has volunteered to work on canlpaigns during the race for governor of Pennsylvania. She is interested in and would like to participate in the election process to the extent she is able.
60. Finally, if Ms. Demidchik were a citizen, she would be able to access certain federal- and state-funded benefits, which would provide her with critical assistance as an elderly and disabled person.
DEFENDANTS' UNLAWFUL POLICIES AND PRACTICES 61. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendants Chertoff, Gonzalez, and Klapakis have a policy, pattern, and practice of failing to process and adjudicate the applications for naturalization of the proposed plaintiff class in accordance with statutory deadlines, namely within 180 days of the date of submission of such applications. 62. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendants Chertoff, Gonzalez, and Klapakis have a policy, pattern, and practice of unlawfully withholding and unreasonably delaying the processing and adjudication of applications for naturalization of the proposed plaintiff class, in disregard of statutory deadlines, because of pending FBI name checks. 63. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendants Chertoff, Gonzalez, and Klapakis have a policy, pattern and practice of unlawfully failing to take all
16

necessary steps to complete FBI name checks in a timely manner so as to allow USCIS to process and adjudicate the applications for naturalization of the proposed plaintiff class within 180 days of the date of submission of such applications.
64. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendants Mukasey and Mueller have a policy, pattern, and practice of failing to complete FBI name checks in a timely manner, with the full knowledge that USCIS requires the completion of such name checks for processing and adjUdication of applications for naturalization of the proposed plaintiff class, and with the full knowledge that the statutory deadlines require USCIS to process and adjudicate such applications within 180 days of the date of submission. The actions and omissions of Defendants Mukasey and Mueller result in unreasonable delays in the completion of the FBI name checks in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires all federal agencies not to engage in unreasonable delays or to withhold required action.
65. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendants have a policy, pattern, and practice of failing to set deadlines for completing FBI name checks and to take all the other reasonable steps necessary to complete the adjUdication of applications for naturalization of the proposed plaintiff class, in utter disregard of statutory deadlines that require USCIS to process and adjudicate such applications within 180 days of the date of submission.
66. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendants Chertoff, Gonzalez, and Klapakis have a policy, pattern, and practice of unlawfully requiring FBI name checks for adjudication of applications for naturalization of the proposed plaintiff class, despite the lack of any statutory or regulatory authorization for such name checks.
17

67. Plaintiffs are infonned and believe that Defendants Mukasey, Chertoff, Gonzalez, and Klapakis unlawfully expanded the FBI name checks in November 2002, as set forth above, without giving notice to the public and allowing a period for public comment and without promulgating a regulation. Requiring FBI name checks as a prerequisite to naturalization effected a substantive change in existing law, resulting in substantial and undue hardship and burden to the proposed plaintiff class.
68. As a result of the Defenda.'1ts' policies, practices, actions, and omissions described herein, members of the proposed plaintiff class have suffered injury, in that they have been unlawfully denied the rights and benefits of United States citizenship. Among other things, members of the proposed plaintiff class have been unable to vote in local, state, and national elections that have occurred since the filing of their naturalization applications, including state and national elections in 2006. They have been unable to sponsor expeditiously their immediate relatives living abroad for pennanent residence in the United States. They have been unable to travel freely outside of the Untied States because they do not have United States passports and the guarantee of re-admission into the country upon their return. Finally, they have been unable to apply for certain types of employment, educational grants and loans, and other benefits that are limited to United States citizens.
CLASS ALLEGATIONS 69. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2). The class, as proposed by Plaintiffs, consists of: All lawful pennanent residents who have submitted or will submit applications for naturalization to the USCIS District Office located within
18

Pennsylvania, and whose applications for naturalization remain unadjudicated more than180 days after the date of submission, because of pending FBI name checks.
70. The requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2) are met.
71. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Upon information and belief, the class consists of at least one hundred persons.
72. 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 USCIS's actions and omissions, including its failure to adjudicate the naturalization applications of the proposed plaintiff class within 180 days of the date of submission because of pending FBI name checks, and its failure to impose deadlines on the completion of FBI name checks in accordance with statutory deadlines, violate the Immigration and Nationality Act and implementing regulations and constitute unreasonable delay and unlawful withholding of agency action in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act; (2) whether the FBI's actions and omissions, including its failure to complete name checks in a timely fashion so as to allow USCIS to adjudicate the naturalization applications of the proposed plaintiff class within 180 days of the date of submission, in accordance with statutory deadlines, constitute unreasonable delay and unlawful withholding of agency action in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act; (3) whether the actions and omissions of USCIS and FBI resulting in prolonged and systemic delays in naturalization violate the Fifth Amendment due process rights of the Named Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class; and (4) whether USCIS's failure to
19

provide the opportunity for public notice and comment prior to implementing the expanded FBI name check requirement violates the Administrative Procedure Act.
73. The claims of the Named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the proposed class. The Named Plaintiffs, like all class members, are lawful permanent residents who have submitted applications for naturalization, and whose applications USCIS has not processed or adjudicated despite the passage of over 180 days since the date of submission, because of pending FBI name checks. Like all members of the proposed class, the Named Plaintiffs bring claims under the Administrative Procedure Act against both USCIS and the FBI and a claim under the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause against USCIS and the FBI.
74. All of 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 interests antagonistic to other members of the class. The named Plaintiffs are also represented by pro bono counsel, including the ACLU of Pennsylvania, the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, HIAS & Council Migration Services of Philadelphia, the Nationalities Service Center, Inc., and the law firm of Langer Grogan & Diver, P.e., who have extensive expertise in class action litigation, including litigation regarding the rights of immigrants.
75. Defendants have acted and have acted on grounds that apply generally to the class and final injunctive relief or declaratory relief is appropriate to the class as a whole.
20

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST DEFENDANTS CHERTOFF, GONZALEZ, AND KLAPAKIS 76. Plaintiffs reallege and reassert the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth fully herein. 77. The Administrative Procedure Act requires administrative agencies to conclude matters presented to them "within a reasonable time." 5 U.S.c. § 555. A district court reviewing agency action may "compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed." 5 U.S.C. § 706(1). The court also may hold unlawful and set aside agency action that, inter alia, is found to be: "arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law," 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A); "in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right," 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C); or "without observance ofprocedure required by law," 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(D). "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). 78. The actions and omissions of Defendants Chertoff, Gonzalez, and Klapakis in failing to adjudicate the applications for naturalization of the proposed plaintiff class with 180 days of the date of submission because of pending FBI name checks, in violation of8 U.S.c. § 1446(d), 8 U.S.C. § 1571(b), and 8 C.F.R. § 335, violate the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 555(b); 5 U.S.C. §§ 706(1), 706(2)(C), 706(2)(D). 79. The actions and omissions of Defendant Chertoff, Gonzalez, and Klapakis in failing to set deadlines for completing FBI name checks and to take all the other
21

reasonable steps necessary to complete the adjUdication of applications for naturalization of the proposed plaintiff class within 180 days of the date of submission because of pending FBI name checks, contrary to the requirements of8 U.S.c. § 1446(d), 8 U.S.C. § 1571(b), and 8 C.F.R. § 335, violate the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 555(b), 706(1), 706(2)(A), 706(2)(C), 705(2)(D).
80. Defendants have a duty under 8 U.S.c. § 1446(d), 8 U.S.C. § 1571(b), and 8 c.P.R. § 335 to finally adjudicate Plaintiffs' naturalization applications within the deadlines imposed by statute and regulations. Defendants' unlawful conduct in failing to do so has resulted in, inter alia, unreasonable delays in and unlawful withholding of the adjudication of Plaintiffs' naturalization applications. As a result of Defendants' actions and utter indifference to statutory deadlines, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer injury. Declaratory and injunctive relief are therefore warranted.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST DEFENDANTS MUKASEY AND MUELLER 81. Plaintiffs reallege and reassert the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth fully herein. 82. The Administrative Procedure Act requires administrative agencies to conclude matters presented to them "within a reasonable time." 5 U.S.C. § 555. A district court reviewing agency action may "compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed." 5 U.S.c. § 706(1). The court also may hold unlawful and set aside agency action that, inter alia, is found to be: "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law," 5 U.S.c. § 706(2)(A); "in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right," 5 U.S.C. §
22

706(2)(C); or "without observance of procedure required by law," 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(D). "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).
83. The failure of Defendants Mukasey and Mueller to timely complete FBI name checks, or to set or adhere to any timelines for completion of FBI name checks, with the full knowledge that USCIS requires the completion of such name checks for adjudication of applications for naturalization of the proposed plaintiff class, and with full knowledge of the statutory deadlines and requirements for adjudication of naturalization applications pursuant to 8 U.S.c. § 1446,8 U.S.c. § 1571 (b), and 8 C.F.R. § 335, violates the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.c. § 555(b); 5 U.S.C. §§ 706(1), 706(2)(A), 706(2)(C), 706(2)(D).
84. Defendants Mukasey and Mueller have a duty pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, agreements with USCIS, and Executive Order 10450, to timely complete USCIS-initiated name checks for naturalization applications, given Defendants' full knowledge that FBI name checks are required to finally adjudicate Plaintiffs' naturalization applications within the deadlines imposed by statute and regulations. Defendants' unlawful conduct in failing to do so has resulted, inter alia, in unreasonable delays in and unlawful withholding of the adjudication of Plaintiffs' naturalization applications. As a result of Defendants' actions and utter indifference to statutory deadlines, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer injury. Declaratory and injunctive relief are therefore warranted.
23

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS CLAUSE ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
85. Plaintiffs reallege and reassert the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
86. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the government from depriving any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law. U.S. Const., Amend. V.
87. Defendants Chertoff, Gonzalez, and Klapakis have a pattern, practice, or policy of failing to adjudicate the applications for naturalization of the proposed plaintiff class within 180 days of the date of submission of such applications because of pending FBI name checks, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1446(d), 8 U.S.C. § 1571, and 8. C.F.R. § 335.
88. Defendants Mukasey and Mueller have a pattern, practice, or policy of tolerating systemic, prolonged, and umeasonable delays in the FBI name check process, with full knowledge that USCIS requires the completion of such "name checks" for adjudication of applications for naturalization of the proposed plaintiff class within the statutory deadlines.
89. Defendants have a pattern, practice, or policy of failing to set deadlines for completing "name checks" and to take all the other reasonable steps necessary to complete the adjudication of applications for naturalization of the proposed plaintiff class with 180 days of the date of submission of such applications because of pending FBI name checks, in violation of8 U.S.C. § 1446(d), 8 U.S.c. § 1571, and 8 C.F.R. § 335.
24

90. The above-described actions and omissions by Defendants violate Plaintiffs' rights to due process oflaw. As a result of Defendants' actions, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer injury. Declaratory and injunctive relief are therefore warranted.
FOURTH CLAM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF NOTICE-AND-COMMENT REQUIREMENTS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST DEFENDANTS CHERTOFF, GONZALEZ, AND KLAPAKIS 91. Plaintiffs reallege and reassert the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth fully herein. 92. The actions of Defendants Chertoff, Gonzalez, and Klapakis in November 2002 to expand the FBI name check for naturalization applications constitute a rule within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 551(4). 93. The Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 553, requires administrative agencies to provide a notice-and-comment period prior to implementing a substantive rule, including a rule that is a departure from prior policy and practice and that has a substantial adverse effect upon a large number of those affected. 94. The actions and omissions of Defendants Chertoff, Gonzalez, and Klapakis in failing to provide a notice-and-comment period prior to the November 2002 expansion ofthe FBI name check requirement violated 5 U.S.C. § 553 in that the expansion constituted a substantive rule that departed from prior policy and practice and has had a substantive adverse impact upon a large number of those affected, namely naturalization applicants.
25

95. As a result of Defendants' actions and omissions, Plaintiffs were injured, and declaratory and injunctive relief is appropriate.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court: 1. Assume jurisdiction over the matter. 2. Certify the class of Plaintiffs. 3. With respect to the certified class of Plaintiffs, order Defendants to: (a) take all necessary steps to complete all FBI name checks of class members within a reasonable time period not to exceed 45 days from the date of the Court's order; and (b) finally adjudicate all naturalization applications of class members with a reasonable time period not to exceed 90 days from the date of the Court's order. 4. Enjoin Defendants and order them to: (a) take all necessary steps to complete all FBI name checks of naturalization applicants within 90 days from the date of submission ofthe applications; (b) and finally adjudicate all naturalization applications with 180 days from the date of submission. 5. Order Defendants Chertoff, Gonzalez, and Klapakis to revoke and suspend the November 2002 expansion of the FBI name check with respect to naturalization applications, until such time as Defendants have completed promulgating a rule following the Administrative Procedure Act's process for notice and comment by the public. 6. Issue a declaratory judgment holding unlawful:
(a) the actions and omissions of Defendants Chertoff, Gonzalez, and Klapakis in failing to adjudicate applications for naturalization within 180 days of the date of submission, because of pending FBI name checks;
26

(b) the actions and omissions of Defendants Mukasey and Mueller in
failing to timely complete FBI name checks to allow USCIS to adjudicate applications
for naturalization within 180 days of the date of submission; and
(c) the actions and omissions of all Defendants in failing to set
deadlines and to take all necessary steps to adjudicate applications for naturalization
within 180 days of the date of submission.
7. Award reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to the Equal Access to
Justice Act,S U.S.C. § 504,28 U.S.C. § 2412.
8. Grant any and all further relief this Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
Jp Grogan
award Diver LANGER GROGAN & DIVER, P.C. 1717 Arch Street, Suite 4130 Philadelphia, Pa. 19103 (215) 320-5660
Ayodele Gansallo Judith Bernstein-Baker HIAS & COUNCIL MIGRATION SERVICE
OF PHILADELPHIA, INC.
2100 Arch Street, 3rd Floor Philadelphia, Pa. 19103 (215) 832-0900
Mary Catherine Roper Witold 1. Walczak
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION - PENNSYLVANIA
P.O. Box 40008 Philadelphia, Pa. 19106 (215) 592-1513
27

Kristine C. Mehok Steven Larin
NATIONALITIES SERVICES CENTER, INC.
1216 Arch Street, 4th Floor Philadelphia, Pa.191 07 (215) 893-8400 Of Counsel: Cecillia D. Wang
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT
39 Drumm Street San Francisco, Ca. 94111 (415) 343-0775 (Application for admission pro hac vice forthcoming)
Dated: Aprill, 2008
28

",]S 44 (Rev. 1]/04)

CIVIL COVER SHEET

APPENDIXE

rhe JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service ofpleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provide( ly local rules of court This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose ofinitiatin! he civil docket sheet (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM.)

[. (a) PLAINTIFFS
Mikhail Ignatyev and Nataliya Petrovna Demidchik, on behalf ofthemselves and all others similarly situated.

DEFENDANTS
Michael Chertoff, Michael Mukasey, Robert S. Mueller, Emilio T. Gonzales and Evangelina Klapakis.

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Philadelphia
(EXCEPT IN US PLAlNTIFF CASES)

County of Residence of First Listed Defendant

Washington D.C.

(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE LAND INVOLVED

(c) Attorney's (Finn Name, Address, and Telephone Number)
John 1. Grogan, Langer Grogan & Diver, P.C 1717 Arch Street, Suite 4130 Philadelphia, Pa. 19103 (215) 320-5662
[I. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an "X" in One Box Only)

J I U.s. Government Plaintiff

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

Attorneys (If Known)

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES(Place an ·'X" in One Box for Plaintift

(For Diversity Cases Only)

and One Box for Defendant)

PTF Citizen of This State

DEF

PTF DEF

0

0 I Incorporated or Principal Place

0 4 ,4

of Business In This State

U.S. Government Defendant

o 4 Diversity
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item Ill)

Citizen of Another State

0 2 0 2 Incorporated and Principal Place of Business In Another State

0 5 05

rv, NATURE OF SUIT (Place an "X" in One Box Only)

CONTRACT

TORTS

J 110 Insurance

PERSONAL INJURY

PERSONAL INJURY

J 120 Marine

0 310 Airplane

0 362 Personal Injury -

1 130 Miller Act

0 3 I 5 Airplane Product

Med. Malpractice

J 140 Negotiable Instrument

Liability

0 365 Personal Injury -

J 150 Recovery of Overpayment 0 320 Assault, Libel &

Product Liability

& Enforcement of Judgment

Slander

0 368 Asbestos Personal

J 151 Medicare Act

0 330 Federal Employers'

Injury Product

J 152 Recovery of Defaulted

Liability

Liability

Student Loans

0 340 Marine

PERSONAL PROPERTY

(Exc1. Veterans)

0 345 Marine Product

0 370 Other Fraud

J 153 Recovery of Overpayment

Liabiliry

CJ 371 Truth in Lending

of Veteran's Benefits

0 350 Motor Vehicle

0 380 Other Personal

,J 160 Stockholders' Suits
J I 90 Oilier Contract 195 Contract Product Liability

0 355 Motor Vehicle Product Liability
0 360 Other Personal

Property Damage 0 385 Propelty Damage
Product Liability

J 196 Franchise

Injury

REAL PROPERTY

CIVIL RIGHTS

PRISONER PETITIONS

J 210 Land Condemnation

0 441 Voting

0 510 Motions to Vacate

J 220 Foreclosure

0 442 Employment

Sentence

J 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment J 240 Torts to Land

0 443 Housing! Accommodations

Habeas Corpus: 0 530 General

J 245 Tort Product Liability

0 444 Welfare

0 535 Death Penalty

J 290 All Other Real Property 0 445 Amer. wlDisabilities - 0 540 Mandamus & Other

Employment

0 550 Civil Rights

0 446 Amer. wlDisabilities - 0 555 Prison Condition

Other

X 440 Other Civil Rights

Citizen or Subject of a

0

Forei Coun

FORFEITUREIPENALTY
0 610 Agriculture 0 620 Other Food & Drug 0 625 Drug Related Seizure
of Property 21 USC 881 0 630 Liquor Laws 0 640 R.R. & Truck 0 650 Airline Regs. 0 660 Occupational
Safety!Health 0 690 Other
LABOR 0 710 Fair Labor Standards
Act 0 720 LaborlMgmt. Relations 0 730 Labor!Mgmt.Reporting
& Disclosure Act 0 740 Railway Labor Act 0 790 Other Labor Litigation 0 791 EmpJ. Ret. Inc.
Security Act

3 0 3 Foreign Nation
BANKRUPTCY
o 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 o 423 Withdrawal
28 USC 157
PROPERTY RIGHTS
o 820 Copyrights o 830 Patent o 840 Trademark
SOCIAL SECURITY
o 861 HlA (1 395ft) o 862 Black Lung (923) o 863 DIWCIDIWW (405(g» o 864 ssm Title XVI o 865 RSI (405(g»
FEDERAL TAX SUITS
o 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff
or Defendant)
o 871 IRS-Third Party
26 USC 7609

0 6 06
OTHER STATUTES
0 400 State Reapportionment 0 410 Antitrust 0 430 Banks and Banking 0 450 Commerce 0 460 Deportation 0 470 Racketeer Influenced and
Comrpt Organizations 0 480 Consumer Credit 0 490 Cable!Sat TV 0 810 Selective Service 0 850 Securities!Commodities!
Exchange 0 875 Customer Challenge
12 USC 3410 0 890 Other Statutory Actions 0 891 Agricultural Acts 0 892 Economic Stabilization Act 0 893 Environmental Matters 0 894 Energy Allocation Act 0 895 Freedom of Infonnation
Act 0 900Appeal of Fee Detenninatio
Under Equal Access to Justice 0 950 Constitutionality of State Statutes

V. ORIGIN
Xl Original
Proceedin

(Place an "X" in One Box Only)

O 2 Removed from
State Court

0 3 Remanded from A ellate Court

0 4 Reinstated or 0 Reo ened

5

Transferred from another district

0 6 Multidistrict

Liti ation

Appeal to District

o 7

Judge from Magistrate

Jud ment

Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION

5 U.S.c. . 555' 5 U.S.c. Brief description of cause:

553' U.S. Const Amend. V.

Class action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to address unlawful delays in the processing of naturalization applications.

VII. REQUESTED IN

X CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION

DEMAND $

CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint

COMPLAINT:

UNDER F.R.C.P. 23

JURY DEMAND:

CJ Yes X No

VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
IF ANY
)ATE

(See instructions):

JUDGE

Hon. Michael Baylson

DOCKET NUMBER 07-0445; 07-0971; 073223; 072718: 07-2859: 08-195

\PRlL I, 2008

'OR OFFICE USE ONLY

RECEIPT #

AMOUNT

JUDGE

MAG. JUDGE

JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 11104)

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44

Authority For Civil Cover Sheet

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference ofthe United States in September 1974, is required for the use ofthe Clerk ofCourt for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk ofCourt for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:

L

(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. Ifthe plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use only

the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then the official, giving

both name and title.

(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U. S. plaintiff cases, enter the name ofthe county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract ofland involved.)

(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. Ifthere are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting in this section "(see attachment)".
n. Jurisdiction. The basis ofjurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.C.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X" in on{
of the boxes. If there is more than one basis ofjurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.

United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.c. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.

United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.

Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes precedence, and box I or 2 should be marked.

Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.s.c. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the citizenship ofthe different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; federal question actions take precedence over diversity cases.)

HI. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section ofthe JS 44 is to be completed if diversity ofcitizenship was indicated above. Mark this sectior for each principal party.

[V. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. Ifthe nature ofsuit cannot be determined, be sure the cause ofaction, in Section VI below, is sufficienl to enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerks in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more than one nature of suit, select the most definitive.

V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes.

Original Proceedings. (l) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.

Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.c., Section 1441. When the petition for removal is granted, check this box.

Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing date.

Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.

Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.s.C. Section J404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or multidistrict litigation transfers.

Multidistrict Litigation. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority ofTitle 28 U.S.c. Section 1407. When this box is checked, do not check (5) above.

Appeal to District Judge from Magistrate Judgment. (7) Check this box for an appeal from a magistrate judge's decision.

VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description ofthe cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statute!

unless diversity.

Example:

U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: UnauthorIzed reception of cable service

VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.

Demand. In this space enter the dollar amount (in thousands of dollars) being demanded or indicate other demand such as a preliminary injunction.

Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not ajury is being demanded.

VIII. Related Cases. This section ofthe JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.

Date and Attorne,y Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

APPENDIXF

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA - DESIGNAnON FORM to be used by counsel to indicate the category of the case for the purpose of assignment to appropriate calendar.

Address of Plaintiff: Mikhaillgnatyev. 10866 Parlin Terr. # 2. Phila. Pa. 19116. Nataliya Petrovna Demidchik. 10669 Halstead St., Phila. Pa. 19116

Address of Defendant:

Michael Chertof£ Department of Homeland Security, Washington D.C.

Place of Accident, Incident or Transaction:_ _ _ _~P'_'hC.!.!i.!!la"'d""e!1lp~h"'ia"_C=o"'un"'ty"__ _ ___:_....,,-_ _ _ _--:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ (Use Reverse Side For Additional Space)

Does this civil action involve a nongovernmental corporate party with any parent corporation and any publicly held corporation owning 10% or more of its stock?

(Attach two copies of the Disclosure Statement Form in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 7. I(a)1.

YesO NoX

Does this case involve multidistrict litigation possibilities?
RELATED CASE, IF ANY:

YesX NoD

Case Number: 07:-0445; 07-0971; 07-3223; 07-2718; 07-2859; 08-195 Judge Hon. Michael Baylson

Date Terminated: Open or terminated since 1101108

Civil cases are deemed related when yes is answered to any of the following questions:

1. Is this case related to property included in an earlier numbered suit pending or within one year previously terminated action in this court?

Yes O NoX 2. Does this case involve the same issue of fact or grow out of the same transaction as a prior suit pending or within one year previously tenninated

action in this court?

YesX NoD

3. Does this case involve the validity or infringement ofa patent already in suit or any earlier numbered case pending or within one year previously

terminated action in this court?

Yes O NoX

V CIVIL (Place in ONE CATEGORY ONLY)
A. Federal Question Cases:
I. 0 Indemnity Contract, Marine Contract, and All Other Contracts

B. Diversity Jurisdiction Cases:
l. 0 Insurance Contract and Other Contracts

2. 0 FELA 3. D Jones Act-Personal Injury 4. 0 Antitrust

2. 0 Airplane Personal Injury 3. D Assault, Defamation 4. 0 Marine Personal Injury

5. D Patent

5. 0 Motor Vehicle Personal Injury

6. 0 Labor-Management Relations

6. 0 Other Personal Injury (Please specify)

7. X Civil Rights

7. 0 Products Liability

8. 0 Habeas Corpus

8. 0 Products Liability - Asbestos

9. 0 Securities Act(s) Cases

9. 0 All other Diversity Cases

10. 0 Social Security Review Cases

(Please specify)

II. 0 All other Federal Question Cases
(Please specify)
ARBITRATION CERTIFICATION
(Check appropriate Category) 1,_ _--"J"'o"'h:.:.n..:;,J'-.G"""'ro""g"'a"'n_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, counsel of record do hereby certify:
o Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 53.2, Section 3(c)(2), that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the damages recoverable in this civil action case
exceed the sum of$150,000.00 exclusive of interest and costs;

X Relief other than monetary damages is sought.

DATE: April},2008

PA-72443

Attorney I.D.#

NOTE: A trial de novo will be a trial by jury only if there has been compliance with F.R.C.P. 38.

I certify that, to my knowledge, the within case is not related to any case now pending or within one year previously terminated action in this court except as noted above.

DATE: _ _ _ _ _ __ CIV. 609 (4/03)

Attorney-at-Law

Attorney I.D.#

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CASE MANAGEMENT TRACK DESIGNATION FORM Mikhail Ignatyev and Nataliya Petrovna Demidchik, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
CIVIL ACTION NO:
v. Michael Chertoff; Michael Mukasey; Robert S. Mueller; Emilio To. Gonzalez Evalngelina Klapakis

APPENDIX I

In accordance with the Civil Justice Expense and Delay Reduction Plan of this court, counsel for plaintiff shall complete a case Management Track Designation Form in all civil cases at the time of filing the complaint and serve a copy on all defendants. (See § 1:03 ofthe plan set forth on the reverse side of this form.) In the event that a defendant does not agree with the plaintiff regarding said designation, that defendant shall, with its first appearance, submit to the clerk of court and serve on the plaintiff and all other parties, a case management track designation form specifying the track to which that defendant believes the case should be assigned.

SELECT ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CASE MANAGEMENT TRACKS:

(a) Habeas Corpus - Cases brought under 28 U.S.C. §2241 through §2255.

( )

(b) Social Security - Cases requesting review of a decision of the Secretary of Health

and Human Services denying plaintiff Social Security Benefits

( )

(c) Arbitration - Cases required to be designated for arbitration under Local Civil Rule 53.2. ( )

(d) Asbestos - Cases involving claims for personal injury or property damage from

exposure to asbestos.

( )

(e) Special Management - Cases that do not fall into tracks (a) through (d) that are

commonly referred to as complex and that need special or intense management by

the court. (See reverse side of this form for a detailed explanation of special

management cases.)

(X)

(f) Standard Management - Cases that do not fall into anyone of the other tracks.

( )

APRIL 1, 2008 Date
(215) 320-5662 Telephone

JOHN J. GROGAN Attorney-at-law
(215) 320-5703 FAX Number

Plaintiffs Attorney for
j grogan@langergrogan.com E-Mail Address

 
 Case 2:08-cv-01547-PD Document 34 Filed 10/08/08 Page 1 of 16 Case 208-cv-0154!PD Document 32-2 Filed 10/08/2008 Page 1 of 34

IN THE. lJNHTll STATIcS llISTRICT comu
FOR THE EASTERN IlISTlUCT OF PE.NNSYLVANIA

MIKIIAII_ IGNATYIV_ MYROSI A V A VASYL!VNA MELNYK: MOHAMED S. AIlDElWAllilll; EUGENE KOIKOI; AIlOI MOHAMED AU; AIIMFIl BELAUUID; MIRZA ARSHMl ALI 11Alli; MIRZA MOIIAMMFD BAlG; MARIAM IlAIG: ADEL KHALIL; CARLOTTA HOPE; AND VALENTINA CRUZ on behalf of themselves and a!1 others similarly situaled,

MICflAEL Clll':RTOFF, in his official

Capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security,:

MICHAEL MUKi\S[Y. in his oi1kiaf

capacity as Attorney General urthe

United States, ROBERT S. ivllJELLEFt

in his official capacity as Din;c(or ni' the

Federal Burc:::!U of Investigation,

JONATHAN SCI-IARFEN. in his officra!

capacity 35 Director of the U.S.

Citizenship nnd Immigra1ion Services I. and

KAREN

FITZGERALD

2 ,

in

her

oflicia!

capacity as ACling Dist1'ic1 Director (>fthe

US. Citizenship and lmmigration Services

Phitade!pi1ia District Office.

eiv_ Action No. 0/<:-1547
SECONl) AMENmm CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
ilCTION FOR IJECLARi\lORY AND INJUNCTIVE RI;IJEi

!.

Plaintiffs arc jawful permanent residents uJ'the Unjh~d States who have Jived in

the United S11ltcs for many years. Plaintiffs wish tu bccO!m~ U.s. citizens and long ago submitted

naturn!i!:ation app!ications to United States Citizenship and lmmig!'ation Services ("USUS"), the

I EmiJiu Gonzales !en his post as Director or tJSC!S. Me Sdlarkn is now the Acting Director.
:> Ms. FitzgeraJd has recently replaced Evangeline K!apkis who had been serving as Acting District Director.

Case 2:08-cv-01547-PD Document 34 Filed 10/08/08 Page 2 of 16 Case 208-cv-01S47-PD Document 32~2 Filed 1010812008 Page 2 of 34

responsible J(:dera! agency I Their naturalization app!ic<ltions have not been adjudicated,
or howe"ver, despite the passage over six months since the datcs of submission, be:C<lllSC each of

their applications is awaiting completion of an ·'FBI name cheeL" a background check that the

H3! conducts on behajf of lJSClS.

2.

Plain1iffs seck to pledge their allegiance to the Unikd Statc-s and to participate

fully in our societ.y as United Slates citizens. I-laving qualified to ell):'ill after years ofvl"orking in

the Uni1ed States and contributing 10 111eir communities, Pbinliffs seck only what the ]"n\!

pnwidcs, which is a IIna1 decision on their nntuwlv:atioJ1 applications within the reitSol1nbk

timdines required by la\\/.

J.

Defendant USClS officials Scharfen and Fit/palrick the Secretary of Homeland

Security are responsible fix the tHlturaliz(ltion process. Defendants Mueller and Mukasey [Ire

responsible for the FBI fHHTIl; check and other backgfOund checks conducted in [ht~ course of the

natura!izatl()11 process,

4_

In November 2002. USClS drastieaHy altered the naturalizution procculm: by

requiring a vastly expanded H*l name check to be conducted on every appllcntion. even though

it is n01 required by either statute or rcglliatinn. The FBI implemented the expanded FB! name
check rll II manner that has caused sy,;temic unnecessary and prolonged delays in tbe
or naturalization proccss< As a result Defendants' policies and practices. l11c unwarranted and

cumbersome new FBI na111e check procedllre has resulted '111 months-long and even ycllts-long

delays in naturalization adjudication for PJairllifis and the proposed dass.

5.

users's own Ombudsman has st,Jted thaI, as implemented by Defendants, the

FB! name check used in naturalization applications is ofqucstionabk value in detecting persons

) In all statutory and regulatory provisiuns cited in lhis Complaint lhe term "'Service" refers to the USciS S liSe.! I iOl(a)(J4): 6l!SC. 9271.
2

Case 2:08-cv-01547-PD Document 34 Filed 10/08/08 Page 3 of 16 Case 208-cv-0154 7-PD Document 32~2 Fiied IOIOS12008 Page 3 of 34

who lTlay POSt" a threal hl security. Neverthekss, lJSClS uses the FBI name check without

imposing any deadline:; for completion. In requiring FBI name checks and toJeraling sys{cmic

uses and prolonged delays during those name d1ccks, both

;;Ind the FBI have acted \';.;ilh

usns cnmp!ete disregard {{n" Congress's: plain directive thal

5hou!d complete the processing of

naturalization applications within six months !h:Jl11 the date of submission. Through their

insistence on H3! name checks, USUS and the VBl hnvc unreasonably delayed the processing of

users lhe naturalization applications of Plaintiffs and the proposed class members, and

has

llnlavvfuljy wilhheld llnaJ adjudication oflhcsc applications.

6.

Defend:.mls' unla\v{'u] conduct has deprived P!aintifL" of the privileges of United

State;.; Citizenship_ Plaintiffs cannot vote, serve onjuries, GxpcditiollSly sponsor their immediate

relatives !lving abrnad 1{)f permanent residence. receive business and education loans and other

benefits reserved for citizens, participate in the Visa Wuiver Program. or travel abroad and rctum
or to the United States without fcar exclusion from this country. Plaintiffs' c:xpcricm:es arc

typical of tens of thousands of other natura!izMion applicants around the country who have

5uficred unrc8sonuble and unlawful delays in thc naturalizill ion process because of !ong~pcnding

FBJ name checks.

7,

Plaintiffs respccttl.ll!:y request on behulf ofthwlSe!VCS and all others sirnilarly

situated, that the Court certify lhe propused class, enter judgment in ['[wor of the prnposcd class

on aU claims, and grant the rdiefrequestcd herein. Specinca!!y, Plaintiffs request that the Court

require the DeJcnd8nts to adjudicate their applications for naturalization withjn the time periods

prescribed by law, and dcc!arc thi'lt the Defendants" actions violate the naturalization statue and

rcgulations, Imvs governing administrative ",gCIlCY action. and the Due Proct:,ss Clause of the

>"itfh Amendment.

, ,

Case 2:08-cv-01547-PD Document 34 Filed 10/08/08 Page 4 of 16 Case 2:08-cv-01547-PD Docurnent 32-2 Filed 10/0812008 Page 4 of 34

8.

'j 'his (\)urt has jurisdiction over this action under th~ AdministnHivc Procedun:

Act,5 USc. § 701. d seq" the Mandamus Ace 28 U.S"C. § 13ft 1, and 28 USc. *1331, which

vest the United StilLes dislrict courts vvith juris.diction over civl! actions arising under the

or Constitution. laws, or treaties the United Slates.

9,

n Venue prop.:r!y' !ics with this district PUl'sU<l!1t to USC. § 1391(b), as the

named plaintiffs reside vvithin tbis judiciill district and a substant.ial part (1[' the activities

complained of occurred V\.'lthin this judicial district.

10. The Named Plaintiffs and proposed class representatives are: (a) Mikhail Ig,natyev , a re,sident of t.he City of Philadelphia, the State
of Pennsylvania and the United Slates of Amt'T!cil; (n) Mohamt:d S, Abdclwah;,\b, a re,sident of West Cheste!\ the State of
Pennsylvania llild the United SLHtcs of America; {c) MyrosJava Vasy!ivna Melnyk. a resident of Norristuwn, the State of
Pennsylvania and the United States or America: (d) Eugene KoikoL a resident ofihe City of PhibdcJphia, the State l)f
Penns)'!vania and the United States uf America: (e) Abdi Mohamcd AU, a residenl oflhe, City of Philadelphia, the State of
Pennsylvania and the t !nited States of America:

4

Case 2:08-cv-01547-PD Document 34 Filed 10/08/08 Page 5 of 16 Filed 10/08/2008 Page 5 of 34
(0 Ahmed Lklaguid. 11 resident of Levitto\vll, the Sinie of Pennsylvania and
the United Stales of America; (g) Mirza Mohamed Haig and Mariam B(llg, husband and wile, residents or
AllcnWwl1. trl(: Slale of f-'cnnsyJvaniu and the l Initcd Statc~ or America: (tl) Mirza Arshad Ali Haig a resident. of Audubon, the SWk of Pennsylvania
and the United States of All1cricll. (1) Add KhaliL a resident of the City of Phijadelphia, State ofPennsyJvania
and the United St<ltcs of America; 0) Carlotta Hope IS a resident of the City of Philadelphia, Stak of
Pennsylvania and the United States of America. (k) Valentina CruL" resident of the City (If Philadelphia, State or
Pennsylvania and the United States of America ! 1. Delendant. Michael Chertofl is the Secretary of j-j(Hneland Security, which
encompasses USclS, )-Ie is charged with '"[alll authorities and functions of the Department of llomeJand Security (DHS) to administer and enforce lhe immigration raws," 8 CFJt § 2.!; 8 USc. § ! I03(aL He is sued in his official capacity,'.
]2. Deiendanl Michael Mukasey is the Attorney General of the United Stales. He shares responsibility with Defendant ChcrtotT lor administering and enforcing t.he nation"s immigralinn laws. Thc Attorney Genera! is the head of the United States Department of Justlee
ur ("DO-I"), \-vhich encompasses the Federal Bureau Inwsliga!ion. He is sued in his ollicial
capacity. 13. Defendant Robert Mueller is the Director of 1he Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBl). !1e is charged \vith administering the liB]' s dutie;; to conducf investigatlnlls in connection
5

Case 2:08-cv-01547-PD Document 34 Filed 10/08/08 Page 6 of 16
Case 2:08-cv~01547-F'D DocUI'nent. 32-2 Filed! 0/08/2008 Page 6 of 34

with citizenship applications under review by USC!S, including condu("ting FBl name checks.
He is sued in his offkial capacity. 14. Ddclldant jOl1tllnan Scharfen is the Director of USclS, He is charged with
adminislering the immigration lavv's of the United States, including the processing and
adjudication of cilizemhi r applications. !Ie is sued in his ofnciaJ capacity.
15. DeJe.ndant Karen fitzpatrick is lhe Acting District Direclor of the USUS Dislrict Five. She is sued in her oiTicia! c;;lpacity.

STATUTORY ANI) REGIJLATORY scm:1\lli

16. The Uilited States Constitution grams Congress the power to "estahlish a Uniform

Rule ofNaturaJiznlio!l," Art L ~ 8, d. 4. Congre.ss delegated authority for na1lJrnlization to the

Attorney Genera!. S'ee I) U.S,c. § 1421(a); Pub. L. No. 101-649, Tit IV, 104 StaL 4978, 5038-

48 (Nov. 29, 1(90). The Attorney General, in turn, delegated respnJ1sibHit)i for naturalization to

the fonner Immigration and NaturalizatioJl Service (lNS). 8 eLF(, § IOO.2(a); 28 C'.F.!t FL

usns 105. Since the abolition of the tNS in 2002,

has been the federal agency responsible for

processing and adjudication ofnatura!ization applications. S'Cf! 1!omeland Security Act of2002, Pub. L. No. ! 07-296. §47!, 116 Stat. 2! :15, 2.205 (codifi(~d at 6 U.S.C § 29] (a) (transferring

authority for immigration enf()rcemenl and services ()'om (()finer Immigration and Naturalizalion

Service 10 nc\v Department oj' 11o!11c!and Secufity).

!7. In order to apply fix naturaiiz;:ltion. a lawful permanent resident must file an

application for naturalization with USC/So 8 U.S.c. ~ !445(a), (b); 1{ C.F.R. §§ 3] 6.4, 334.1,

334.2,

6

Case 2:08-cv-01547-PD Document 34 Filed 10/08/08 Page 7 of 16 Case 2:08··cv··01547·PO Oocurnent 32-2 Filed 10/08/2008 Page 7 of 34

]8. USClS has a policy of processing nnturalizi.ltion applications in chronological

order, based upt1!l date of receipt of the applicatioll and fee. In accordance with this policy, when

USClS rt'ecivcs a naturalization appHcatio!l and fcc, USC!S grants the applicant a "priority date"

that is based on the dilte of receipt.. INS Operation lnstruction 103 .2(q), availahle (If Operations

Instructions of tbe Immigration and Naturali:t:Mion Service (Malthew Bender, 20(7) (Lexie; c.

Immigration Library. Operations Instructinns of the INS hIe).

uses 19. Before a person may be naturalized,

may conduct or waivlO a "persona!

investigation" of the 11pplicant. 8 UXc. § 1446(a). By rcgulalron, USCIS must also complete a

('criminal background check." g CF.R. §§ 33.:'1.1. 335.2-

20. Since 19TI. Cungress has also required (hat 11 "criminal hackgwund

investigation" he cnnductcd on each applicant for citizenship. Pub, L l 05-119, ritle 1, ! 11 Stat. 2440, 2448~49 (1997); 8 C.FJC § 3352.(b). Congress did not specify \vna1. such an investigation

should entail.
or 2!. In March 1998, to implement the rcquirenwll1 a criminal background check. the

INS (USClS's predecessor agency) prumulgated a proposed rule il)r notice and public comment.

See Requiring Complt~tion ofCriminai Background Checks Bcl\)[c Fina! Adjudication of

Naturalization Applications, 63 Fed. Reg. 12979 (Mar. !7. 1998). After receiving public

comment, lNS promulgated a final rcgu!a1ion found at 8 Cl .l\. ~ 33).2(b) to implement the

j 997 Jaw.

2L Under 8 CT.R. ~ }3S.2(b). the FBl performs a criminal background check on

each naturalization applicant This criminal background check involves i;\ check orthe

applicant's fingerprints against FBI databases 10 confirm \vhetber or not the apptiCllnt has an

7

Case 2:08-cv-01547-PD Document 34 Filed 10/08/08 Page 8 of 16 Case 2:08-cv-01541-PD Document 32"2 Filed 10/08/2008 Page 8 of 34
administrative or criminal record, 8 CJ<R. ~ 335.2(b). These criminal background checks arc
usually cUlnpklcd 'within days if not hours. 23. Upon intllrlTlution imd belief, altbough I) C.l .It 9 3352(b) defines the "crimin"l
background check" to include only a fingerprint records check, USclS requires two other security checks: a name checK through the Interag.ency Border lnspection System (!HIS) database and the FHl name chcl.,:k.
24-. Aner the '"criminal background check" is compktcd pursuant 10 8 C.FJ-t § :nS.2(b), (JSCIS schedules a naturalization examination, at which un applicant meets with a tlSCIS examiner who is authorized to ask questions and take testimony. 8 C.LR. § 335.2(a). The examination typiea!!y includes questions testing the applicant's. English liM'ae), and bask knowledge ()[the history and government 01'111(.' United Slales, 8 C'.F.R. § 135.2(c). Applicants with 11 medical disahility that prevents thefn from learning English and lor civics may apply for a waiver of the citizenship examination. 8 CF.R. § 312.1
25. The USclS examiner must det.ermine \vhcther 1.0 grant or deny the nDturalization
* application. 8 USc. 1446(d). Naturalization is not discretionary. users must grant a
naturalization application ifthe applicant has complied ""jt.h aU requirements i"(>!" naturalization.
S CF.R. § 335.3. USC'IS must make. a final determination on every naturalization application.
either al the time of the examination or, at 1Iw lMcst, \vithin 120 days after the date oflhe ;;xamination. 8 CF.R. ~ 3353.
26, Once all application is granted, USclS schedules the ,lpplic8nt for an o!ltb ceremony at which he or she is sworn in as il United States citizen.
27, IfUSC1S does not isstlc a dc,cisJOll within ]20 days ofthc examination, Dll Ypplicant may filc ,sui1. in district court under 8 U.S.c. § 1447(b), That statute confer~
8

Case 2:08-cv-01547-PD Document 34 Filed 10/08/08 Page 9 of 16 Case 2:08-'cv-01547·PO Document 32-2 Filed 101()81200B Page 9 of 34

jurisdiction upon the district court in the district in vvhich the applicant resides, and it allows the

court either to determine the matter (i.e,. grant or deny citizenship) or to remand with appropriate

instructions to USclS to determine the mutter. A primary purpose of that statute. enacted in

1990, was to decrease backlogs in the naturalization process and reduce waiting limes for

naturalization applicants. l-LR. Rep. No. J O!·! X7, at 1{ (1989); ]35 enng. Ret:. H4539··02,

H4542 (1989) (statement of Rep. Morrison).

28.

* in addition, 81..LS.C. 1571(b) stilfes, "It is thc sense oJ 'Congress that the

processing of [111 immigration benefit application should be completed not talcr than ]80 days

after tile initial date of filing of the application. ,." NawrnJi,;:ation ilppiications are among the

"immigration benefit app!ications" included within this provision. This provision, along with 8

U.S,c. § lS71(a), § 1572, and § ]573, makes clear Congrcss's in lent 1.0 diminatc persistent

backlogs in the processing of immigration benefit applications. Moreover, Congrcss has defined

the term "backlog" in the stIlt\lC \1".> "the period of time in excess of 180 days IhM such application

has been pending before the Immigration and NaturuJizcltions Service." 8 U.S,c. § J572(!).

29. Sectiun ! 57J (b) provides- the statutory guidelinc and "rule ()l" reason'" fi,)r

determining whether naturalization applications [.Ire being proccss-cd In it timely manneL Under the most straightforward rl',ading of g \J 's,c. ~ J.) 71 (b), all na1.uralization appfic,ations that are
nol finally adjudkah:d within! 80 days of the dale ()f submission are prcsumptively unreasonably

delayed.

.\lli.ClS EXPANSION OF "FBI NAME CHECKS"
30. P!aintj(E; ilrc informed and believe tbat users may have requested "FBI name

checks'" for naturalization applicants prior to 2002. P!ainWI'> arc in(cmllcd and believe that

betc)fc 2002, theSt~ FBI name checks may have involved searches of the applicant's name against

Case 2:08-cv-01547-PD Document 34 Filed 10/08/08 Page 10 of 16
Case 2:08··cv-01547-PD Document 32-2 Filed 1010812008 Page 10 of 34

an FBI database containing the names of per~;ons "of inlercsC 1.u the FBI i.e, criminal suspects,

targets of investigations. Hnd others suspected of \\,'wngdoing,

3!. P!llintiffs Me informed and be!icvt~ that beginning. in November 200L USCIS

dramatically altered the naturalization procedure by expanding the ,,;cope of the FBI name chec,k,

by requiring the FBI to search applicants' names against additional databases.

12. The expanded F/31 name check uscd by USUS is not pklrt oftlw "crimina!

background cbeck" that j~ required by Public Law 105··1 19, tit 1, ! 1! Stat. 244g-49 (Nuv. 26.
!9(7), and g Sc.F.!{, 335.2 .

.13. When it expanded the FBl name check reqllirement fOf 1l8turalization in

users November 2002.

did not promulgate a proposed rule or give notice and an opportunity

for pubric comment on the nlie, as it bad dOll(; in ! 998 \·vhen impicmenting tl1(: criminal

background check requirement.

34. The expanded FBI name check was a substantive departure from prior USClS

policy beulusc it imposed a ncl,v requirement in naturaliziltion procedure not based on statute or

regulations and because it has had a substan1.i<l! adverse effect on upp!ieants f()!" naturalization by

causing significant delays in adjudication. As such, the Administrative Procedure Act,S U.S,c.

§ 70] c[ seq.. required USClS to promulgate a proposed rule, provide a notice and comment

perlod, and thereafter promulgate a finaJ rule prior to enacting the November 2002 expanded FBl

name check.

35, PJainliJTs are informed and believe that the expanded FBl name check consists of
or <I search a person's name througb the FBI's criminal and non-criminal Oles in its Cenlral

Records System. The Central Records System contains administrative, applicUll, criminal,

personnel. and other FBI files. Plaintiffs are infi.mned and believe Ihat, since Novembt:r 2002,

10

Case 2:08-cv-01547-PD Document 34 Filed 10/08/08 Page 11 of 16 Filed 1010812008 Page 11 of 34

the expanded FBI name check on naturalization applications includes an FBI search of not only

"main fiks" for persons ,cur interest," but also "rderenccs files" t"\:lr any person or entity thut is

mentiolled in the "mn!n files," including innocent persons whn arc nut suspected ofnny

\vrongdoing, hut "vho have come into contact vV'ltl1 the FBI. including; \vitncsscs, interviewees,

crime victims, and persuns who have applied fm security clearances for pmfcssiona! reasons, or

who may have a name similar to those \,,"110 have- come into contact \Nith the FBI.

,16. Plaintiffs arc informed and believe that since the November 2002 expansion,

l)SCIS docs not adjudicate applications fix naturalization until it receives the results Or~l

completed namc check from the FBI,

37. Plaintiffs afe inftirmed and believe that (!SClS and the FBI have entered into

written agreements regarding the conduct of FBI naDlC checks Oil. among uthers, applicants for

naturalization, and tha1. in these agreements neither USCIS nor the FB! impose any lime limits

t\.x the completion of name checks_

~8. P!aintills arc in!\.)rmed and believe that fl"om time to time and under certain

circumstances, USCIS requests the FBl to expedite the name checks of certain individuals.

including certain applicants for nnturalization.

39. Plaintiffs arc informed and believe thai beginning in April 2006. in response to a

deluge of lawsuits around the country brought by frustruted natura!ization app!lcants pursuant to

8 USc. § 1447(b), users implemented a new policy ofrcfusing to schedule naturalization

users examinations fix those applicants whose FBI Harne checks were not completed.

has

stated tbut an express purpose orthi" policy change was to preclude !1tigation under 8 USC §

1447(0) by those who have passed naturalization examinations ilnd arc il'waiting J!naJ

fldjudicntion of their naturalization applicalions, As a result of this change in pnlh.;.y, \vhich

II

Case 2:08-cv-01547-PD Document 34 Filed 10/08/08 Page 12 of 16 Case 2:08-cv-01547~PD Document 32~2 Filed 1010812008 Page 12 of 34
appears to be all explicit effort to thv'iart Congress's intenl to provide delayed naturalization applicants with recourse to the federal courts, the applications of substantial numhers of class members have been unreasollsbly de!ayc(t and natufillization examiniltions have not been scheduled becLluse of pending I"T3.1 name checks.
40. FBI name checks arc 11mv the cause of systemic. prulonged delays in the processing of applications h,r naturalization. In both 2006 and 2007, the USCIS Ombudsman·· the individual charged by Congress with providing recommcnda1ions on improving USClS services and operations .... declared that Jlame checks "~significantly delay adjudication of immigration benefits for many customers, hinder backlog reduction ellixts, and may not achieve their intended security objectives." Citizenship ,md Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report 2006, at 23 (June 29,20(6) (hereinafter "2006 ReporC)" available af http://www.dlls.gov/xlibrary/asscts! CI SOmbudsman.. Annual Reporl._)006,pdf; C itizcnsh if! and
Immigration Services Ombudsman Annual Report 2007, at n (June I L 2007) (hereinaHer"2007
Report"), available of http://'vww.dhs.gov/xlibrary!m;sets/CISOMB ..Annun! ....Report ..2007.pdf. 41. In the most recent report, the OmbudSl11an declared that "FB! name checks may
be the single biggest ohst;:lc!e to the timely and efficient delivery of immigration bcne!1ts" and that the delays are getting worse, not better. 2007 Rep011 at 37. l'he repor! noted that as of May
1007, over 329,000 uses name checks \verc pending, with 64 pl'T(ent uftbose cases (over
21 ],0(0) pending more than 90 days, and 32. percent (alrnost 107,0(0) pending more than one yei.lL ld. at 37. The 2007 report abo fbund that the problem of Jong-p(~nding name checks had worsened in the preceding year, Itt
42. The Ornhudsman dso questioned the value of FBI nome checks in accomplishing fheir stated purpose, which is to deket persons who ~hou!d be denied immigration benefits
12

Case 2:08-cv-01547-PD Document 34 Filed 10/08/08 Page 13 of 16 Case 2:08-cy.-01547-PO Docurnent 32..2 Filed 10/08/200B Page 13 of 34
because they pose a danger or threal. to security. In n::sponse tu USCJS's claims of effeC1ivencs$, the Ombudsman declared that "'most, if not ulL of the problem cases Ihut wou!d result in an eventual denial uf benefits also can be revealed hy the other more cfJkient, automat.ed criminal and securit.y checks rhat USCIS initinks." 2007 Repoti at 41.
43, Moreover, the Ombudsman '"a greet d1with the assessment of many cnsc workers
and supervisors al USCIS field offices and service centers that the FBi name cheek process has limited value 1,0 public safety or national security, especially because in almost every ease thc applicant is ill the United StaWs during the namc chec,k process, Hving or working without fcstriefion." 2007 Report M 40. In fmihcr acknowledgment of the limited utility ui'namc
checks, the Ombudsman nuted that "!nJame checks are not conduc.ted by the FBI as part of
ongoing investigations or Jl'om a need to learn more about an individual bccausc of any threat or risk perceived by the FBI." 2007 Report at 38.
44, In addition. "rtjo date, the Ombudsman has been unable \l) a~\ccnain from USClS the toi(,! number of actual problem cases that the agency discovered exclusively as a n:sul1 ofli1e FBl name check." 2007 Report at 41, Neither USClS nor the FBI has ever shown that the FBl name check has led to the detection of a national securily threat posed by 11 naturalization appiicant !hM would not have been discovered independently through the llngcrprint records chcd~ or IBIS database check, both of which arc routinely completed within minutes or days and result in no delays in naturalization.
13

Case 2:08-cv-01547-PD Document 34 Filed 10/08/08 Page 14 of 16 Case 2:08<v-01547-PD Document 32-2 Filed 10108/2008 Page 14 of 34
FACTS AS TO NAJI1IW PLAINTIFFS Mikhail jgnalr£..'t~
45. PJaintiffMikh:;l)! !gnat)'cv, native uftbe Ukraine and citizen of the Russian Federation, is 60 years uld. He arrived in the Unikd St.ates \,vith his wife Alia 19natycva in April 1999 as public interest parolees under a law passed by Congress to assist certain nationals l)f former Soviet republics who liKed long standing persecution because (Jf!hcir rejigion. Mr. 19n1ltycv and Ms. !gnatyeva qualified for this status because Ms. !gnatyeva had suffered persecution in the t'i.mner Soviet Union because of her .lcwish Hlith and ethnicity.
46. The couple Jives in Philadelphia. Pennsylvania, Mr. 19natyev was cmph)yed f()f many years as an assembler hy.' !":!mar Window Fashions. Due to ill health, he has ceased working.
47. Mr. IgnatYl;\i became (I bwfu1 permanent resident ("LPFC) on April 28,2000, and filed a naturalization applicat.ion with USCJS on March 29, 2006. This was also the priority date
issued to him by USCIS. He Vias fingerprinted in connection with his application on !VIay 6, 2006, at the App!ication Support Center.
48. Mr. Ignatyev's wile was natuwli/cd ltS a citizen urlhe United States on Mardt 16.
20()S. 49. Shortly aftcr his application to naturalizc was l1Jed, Mr. !gnatyev \VHS diagnosed
with proslate canceL following intense chemotherapy treatment, his condition is now in remlSSlon, Huwever. the ordeal has left bim severdy depressed and afraid for his health.
50. At this time, Mr. Ignalyev remains in poor nwnta! health stemming from his cancer and cancer treatments and is unable to work. As a result he and his wife arc in Jlnancia! straits because her income- alone is insufficient to suppon the-m.
14

Case 2:08-cv-01547-PD Document 34 Filed 10/08/08 Page 15 of 16 Case 2:08-cv-01547+'0 Document 32-2 Filed 10/08/2008 f'age 15 of 34
Mr. 19nalyev bas waited to be scb(xlu!cd for an cxaminalioll in connection with his naturalization
(lpplication for almost tVM years. Upon infonn[ltion and belief, users bas delayed his
cxmninatl(m because FBJ has !1l){ completed Me 19natycv's FBl n<lme check
51, Mr. !gnalyev has hecn prejudiced by the long deby 'In tile adjudication of his
naturalization application in severa! \vays. First, in this election year, where interest in Presidential candidates has reached record leveLs. he wishes vcry much tu participate in the voting process to the extent he is able. Second. if Mr. 19natyev were a United Slates citi/cn, he would qualify for Icdcra!- and state-funded benefits that would provide critical supplemental income and health care bcneflts. Hmvevcr, because of the long delay in his naturalization, he i~ unublc 10 apply for those benefitc;. Citizenship will allow him the pence of mind 10 know that he wi!! be entitled 10 receive mt'dicaf bendlts that wi!! cover the cost orbis treatments and keep him in good hea!th !(w years tll come.
Mvroslava Vasvlivnu M£lruJi 52. Plaintiff, Mymslava Vasy!ivna Melnyk, a native of the Ukraine and a citizen of the Russian FederatioH. She became a la\vfu! permanent resident on April 20, 2000. She filed an appltcation f()[' naturalization on February 1,2000. 53. I'vls. Melnyk, who is 36 years old. fives in Norristown Pennsylvania, She is employed as a teacher al a Ukrainian Catholic SchooL 54. Ms. Melnyk is currently engaged to a United States Citizen and int.ends to marry and CSL:'lblish a jijC fix herseJfhere in the Unite.d States. 55. Following her application for naturalization, Ms. Melnyk was scheduled for a naturalization ex,lmination set rOT May 22, 1006, On May 12,2006, she was notified by USUS tllat her examination had been cancelled due to pending background checks. One year laler, on
15

Case 2:08-cv-01547-PD Document 34 Filed 10/08/08 Page 16 of 16 Filed 10108/2008 Page 160134
May 12,2007, US-CIS indicated that her name cht~ck was still pending. Ms. Melnyk has not received any !lev,,' information concerning her applicMion.
56. Ms. Melnyk has been prejudiced by the inordinate: delay in the processing of her naturalization aprJication.~. She is eager 10 participate fully in United States society as a citizen. She is espcciaJ!y eager to participate in the cJec1.()raJ process in this Presidential dection year.
57. Ms. Melnyk, \\'ho will be mnrricd soon, wishes to start a hlmiJy and build her life in the United States as a citizen. The continlled delay nf her application leaves hcr in an unsettled statc without the it.1I1 rights and protections cunferred by United States Citizenship.
Mohamed S. Ahdclwahall 5l:L Plaintiff, Moh,llne,d S, i\bdehvahut\ (1 native of Egypt eame to the United States through the diversity visa lottery progranL He became a lawful permanent resident on April 7, 1999, His appliention fix naturalization was received by t.lSCIS on November! 0.2005. Mr. Abde!wnhab was scheduled for an naturalization examination on !\ prH ! 2, 2006. However, on Apri! 4, 2006, he was inJcwll1cJ th~H h'15 examination was cancelled "due to unforeseen circumstances." He also received notice from USUS tbat his t~ase was aW;:iiting the result.s from the background checks. 59. ML Abdelwahnb has \;vritten nUlTlerous Jetters and made numerous phone caBs to determine the status of his na1.Uruli[Jtion application. Despite these efforts, he has been unable in !earn any reason /()r the continued delay of his app!iciltion other than the pending background checks. 60, Mr. !\bdelwahab lives in \Vesl Cbester where h(' owns a sma!! communications husiness.
16

Case 2:08-cv-01547-PD Document 34-1 Filed 10/08/08 Page 1 of 18

Case 208-cv-OI541-PD Docurnent

Filed I 0108/2008 Page '17 of 34

61. Me Abdelwahab has be-en severely prejudiced hy the inordin;lte delay in processing of his natuntii!',ation ,lpr!kation. He- \NIshc:-; to establish his fUl11i!:y in the United
States <me! wishes tu pctilio!1, as a citizen, for a \-vitt; fi'om Egypt.. Because oftllc pending SWillS of his app!ication, 1\11". i\bdc!\\,'abab has been reluctant to leave the United Statc~ to return tn Egypt to visit his ramily. He ,,1150 wishes tu paliicipa1.c in the cieCl(lral process in this President!;}! election ),c'.11".
Eug,e!H~ Koikoi 62. Fugcne Koikoi is 8 native of Liberia. He. has bc-en a ];vvVfu! permanent fe-siden! of the Unit.ed Stfllcs since September 2,199::;. He applied (()f naturalization in September 2005. He was scheduled for a naturalization examinatiull Ull h::bruary 24, 2006. Prior 10 lhal dale, he received notice that his examination had beef) cancekd. 63. Mr. Koikoi has made numerOllS attempts to ascertain tht: status "fhis application. On July 18,2006, April! 6,2007 and September 21 < 2007, he wus notified that his appJica!inn was delayed because the results hom his name check arc still pending. 64. Mr. KoiknL who is 34 years old, currenUy attends Drexel University part-lime where he is studying, administrative justice. He aspires eventua!ly to become an attorney, ('urrent!y, he is in the process ofobtuHling employment as a s(lciaJ worker. 65. Mr. Koikni has been severely prejudiced by 1he delay ill his naturalization application. All three of hi8 children arc United SWks citizens. He seeks citizenship so Ihnt he
can be aS~llrcd that he wil! be able to remain with thcm in the l.!nitcd States 10 care 1()r them. lIe
is a!so ~ager to panicipate fully' in 1ini10d States society as a citiLen Clod cspedaUy to participate ;n the electoral process in this Presidential eJection year.

17

Case 2:08-cv-01547-PD Document 34-1 Filed 10/08/08 Page 2 of 18

Case 2 08-cv-OI S4/-PD

Filed 10/08/2008 Page 18 of 34

AQdi Mohamed ,Ali 6(), Abdi Mohar-ned Ali is a native of Somali;:\. He entered the Unit.ed States as a rCnnlCe in September 1999. He filed an applicatiun for natura!iDltion on March 7,2006. He was scheduled fix a naturalization intcrvicyv in June 2006, but 1.hat interview \VQS cance1kd hccalJse his background checks \vcre not completed. 6'7. Mr. Ali has on nUlllerous occasions inquired into the status orhis rwturaJizalion application. Each time he has been told that his application is delayed because his background checks arc nol yet completed. 6K Mr. Ali lives in Philaddphia and is a self-employed Gab driveL 69. Mr. Ali is prejudiced by the dday ill his na1Uralization i1pplication because he is reluctant to leave the UniWd Slates to visit family induding his grandmot.her who is over! 00 years old and is in ill-health. I--le also wishes to particip,lte fully in tJnitIJd States society and especiaHy to parlic:ipate in the electoral process in Ihis Presidential ejection year_
,Ahmed Bc:laguid 70. Ahmed BeJagtlid JS (l native of ivlorocco. Mr. Bdagllid entered the United States on M;;lY 26, 200] lhroug,h the diversity visa program. He filed fix niJturalization un February 26,
or 2006. lie has received nu nnl.ifJCalion the status of his app!ic<ltion. look has contacted USClS
sevend times and has contacted congressional offices to hdp him to no avaiL 7!. Me Be!aguid is currently \vnrkil1g ,15 an e,jcctronie technician. f fe received an
,ls50ciale"s degree last year from YClrk TechniC'Jj Institute.

18

Case 2:08-cv-01547-PD Document 34-1 Filed 10/08/08 Page 3 of 18 Case 2:08-ov-01547-loO Document 32-2 Filed 10108/2008 Page 190f34

n

Me Bclaguld Is seve,-ely p,-ejudleed by (be delay In his na(uralizalinn appllca(loo

because his \ovifc remains in MOTOCCO. He is eager to oring her here and to begin to establish his

hlm!!y here. His [cHmification \vith his \\'ifc is also a critical Jirsl step in his plan (0 return 10

school to pursue ::1 bclchelor' s degree; al] of that is on hold until his naturalization application is

adjudicated. !!e also wishes to participalc in the electoral process in this Presidential election

year.

~ 73. Mir:;:;l Arsad Ali Bsig is a native of Pakistan. He was gnmtcd 3sylwn in lhe

United States in ! 997 and be-carne a lawlid permanent resident in 200 j. l-k ;:.pplicd fbI"

natunllization on March 20, 2006. His applil:ation has been pending since that time due to the

FBl name (:heck.

14. Mr. Ba;g lives In Andnbon Ponnsylvanla aod wor-ks as n sollwaco annlysr. Ills

wife <:md children are already United States citizens and he wants very mu(:h to build II life for his

family here in the United Stales on a permanent basis.

75. Mr. Baig is prejudiced hy the delay in his nillurali:l.atinn application because his

hl111ily cannot establish pcrnwncnt roots in the United States llnd enjoy the rights and protections

of citizenship until he is naturalized, Mr. Baig is Illst) anxious to paliidpate in the electoral

process in this Prcside,nliai election year.

Mirza Mohammed Bail:; and Mariam Baig 76. Mirza Mohammed Haig and Mariam Baig are husband and wife. They are bOih natives of India. tV1r. Baig eame to the Unil.t~d Stales in 1992. Ms. Baig came in 1995. They

19

Case 2:08-cv-01547-PD Document 34-1 Filed 10/08/08 Page 4 of 18
Case 2:08··cv··O'!547-PD Docurnent 32-2 Filed 1010S/20G8 Page 20 of 34

have both Jived in the United Slntes since that time. They filed for nalUra!ization in Juiy 2006

and their applications have been pending since {hat time.
n. Mr. and Mrs. Bilig live in A1Jentu\vl1, Pennsylvania, Mr. Baig is a systems analyst
and Ms. Baig is a pre~schooJ teacher. They have two children \vbo arc hoth United States

citizens.

Mr. and Ms. Haig have heen prejudiced by 1he dday in tbe nalundi/ation applications. I! is their

intent In establish their family in (he United States permanently and with naturalization, their status in the United States rell1aim; uncc.rt\;\in as does the ~tablli1y of their family. They w(luld

,1/s0 like [0 participate in the electoral process in this Prt,sidentia! ekctin!l yenr.

d,dcl KhaHl

78.

Mr. Add is tl n:Jtive and citi/x~n of EgypL He entered the Uni1ed Slates in 1997

and became a lawful pernwnent resident in 2002.

79.

Mr. Ade] lives in Philadelphia \\/lth his I'vife and two children and O\",11S his own

restaurant Aya's Care, in downtnwn fhiladelphia.

80.

Mr, Adcl applied for naturali;;atkm and received a priority date of April 19,

2007.

81,

In June 2008, Mr. Adei contacted USCIS 10 inquire about the deJay' in the

proccssin& orh15 naturalization application. He was tok! that the process would be delayed untit

the completion of the FBI background check. J!e has been Wiliting more than 180 days kif the

completion of his background check,

82.

Iv1r. Add very much wants to be a citizen of the United States, l-le owns a

business here, pays (axcs and "vants to participate in the political pmces,s, especinHy lilt

npcnming Presidential election in November 2008.

20

Case 2:08-cv-01547-PD Document 34-1 Filed 10/08/08 Page 5 of 18 Case 208-cv-01547PD Document 32-2 Filed I 0108/2008 Page 21 of 34

Carlotta H()p~

8.",,

Ms. HopI..': is a native "fUuy'ann. She came to the United Swtcs as a minor with

her puren!" in 1987 and has been a kl\vful permanent resident of the United States since 1ha1 time.

R4.

Ms. Ibpe Jives with her three minor children in Philadelphia. She is employed

by a non~profit organizlltion in Phi1adc-lphia and \vorks as an educator t()f persons seeking to

obtain the-ir high school equivalcnc;.,' certificate.

85.

Ms. llopc applied for naturalization in July 20{)6.

86.

On j()t.Jr occasions, Ms_ I-lop0 has inquired about the status uf her naturalization

applicatitm_ Lach time, she has been informed that her application is delayed because of the FBI

name check.

87.

Ms. Hope very much \vants to be il citizcn because she vvishcs 10 trawl abmad

and in JXlliicular would like to do service work as an educator'ln a jl)fcign country. She does nol

want to carry out these plans until she becomcs a citi/en bCC<H,lse she wanls to travel with tbe full

protections of United States citizenship.

Valentina Cru:f

88.

Valentina Cruz, is a native and citizen (.'If the Domillican Republic. She became

D !awful permanent resident in j 995.

89,

Ms. Cruz. who is 47 yeafs old and lives in Philadelphia. Ms. Cruz suffers fmm

acut.e depression and is supported by her ndult daughtCL

90.

Ms, Cruz fded an application for naturalization and was issued a priority date of

December 21,2006, In January 2008, Ms. Cn]1: was inlixmed by USCIS that her application

21

Case 2:08-cv-01547-PD Document 34-1 Filed 10/08/08 Page 6 of 18
Case 208-cv-01547-PD Document 32-2 Filed 10/1l8/200B Page 22 of 34

was delayed pending the completion of the FBI background check. She has no"v been waiting

fi:)r adjudication orhcr appiicfltinn fijI" neady ont and ol1!:.-half years.

9!.

Ms. Cruz desperately wishes {o become ,1 United SUtes citizen. She has HI/cd

here for! 3 years and wishes t(l stay here f()f the rest of her life. 'fhc unresolved nature of her

status in the United States is emotiona]!y stressful for her. She also wishes to take part in the

upcoming Prcsidenlia! ejection in Novemher 2008.

92. P!ain1iffs are informed 811d beljeve that Defendants Cherfol'L Scharko. and Fitzpatrick havl' a policy, pattern, and practice offai!ing 10 process and Jdjudicate the applications f(Jr naturaJi:;,ation oCthe proposed plaintiff class in accordance ,vith stMu\nry deadlines, namely within ISO days of the date of submission uf stIch app/ita1 ions,
93. Plaintiffs are. informed Ilnd believe that Dc1endants Chertotf Scharfen, and Fitzpatrick have it policy, pattern, '-mel practice of unhnvfu!ly \vilhholding ,mti unrellsonably deluying the processing and adjudication of applications for naturalization ot'the proposed plaintiffdass, in disreg-,:lfd of statutory deadlines. because of pending FBI name checks.
94. PfaintilTs are informed and believe that Defendants C!lert()n~ Scharfen, and Fitzpatrick have a policy, pattern and praclice ofuniaw!u!ly failing to tukc al! necessary Skps to compfete FBI name checks in a timely manner s() as (0 allow USclS to process and adjudicate !be applications for naturalization ()f the proposed plaintiff class within] SO days ofl11e dllLe of submission of such applications.
')). PlaintilTs are informed and believe that Defendants !Vlukascy and Mueller have a policy, patlern, and practice of f:li!ing to complete FBJ !lame checks in a tirndy manner, with the full km'wledge that USC1S requires the completion oi'slich name checks i(}f processing ;md

22

Case 2:08-cv-01547-PD Document 34-1 Filed 10/08/08 Page 7 of 18 Case 2:08-cv-Oi 547-PD Document 32-2 Filed 10/08/2008 Page 23 of 34

adjudication of appiications [\x naturalization uf the proposed plainl!ll class, and with the full

knowledge that the statutory deadlines require l!SCIS t.o process and adjudicale such

applications within! 80 days oflhe date uf submission. Tlw actions and omissions of Defendants

Mukascy and Mueller result in wm:ilsonabk delays in the completion l)fthe FB! flume checks in

violation of1he Adrninistwtivc Procedure Ace \\'l1icl1 require::; all federal agt.:'llcics not to engage

in unreasonable delays or to withhold required action.

96. Plaintiffs arc informed '-mel helieve that Defendants have a policy. pattern, and

practice of railing to set deadlines fix completing FBI Ilame checks and 10 take aU the other

reasonahle steps necessary to eomplc,tc the adjudkation ofapp!ications for naturalization of the

usns proposed plaintiff class, in uller disrcg,anl uf st.atutory deadlines that rcqu'lrt:

to process

und adjudicate such applications within 180 days of the date oj' submission.

97. Plnintiffs arc informed and believe thil1 Defendants Chertof1~ Scharfen, and

Fitzpatrick have a polley. patt,orn. and practice ofunla\vfuHy requiring FBI n8nw. checks for
or adjud ication of applications j{)r natural izlttion the proposed pIa IIltiiT class. despite tile tack of

any statutory or regulatory iluthori;:ation !()!" sllch name checks.

98. PlaintIffs arc informed and believe that Dercndnnts Mukascy, ChcrtofL Scharfen,

and Fitzpatrick unlawfully expanded the FBI /li.unc checks in November 2002, as set jl;)[th ubove,

without giving notice to the public ;clJ1d allowing a period f\)f public comment and without

promulgating;.\ regulation. Requiring l'"!-3! name checks as a prerequisite to naluralization

effected a substantive change in existing law, resulting in substantia! and undue hardship and

burden to the proposed pJaintiffcJass.

99. As a result etfihe Det-cndants' policies, practices, actions, and omissions described

herein. members of the proposed plaintiff cbss have sumTcd injury, in that they buve been

23

Case 2:08-cv-01547-PD Document 34-1 Filed 10/08/08 Page 8 of 18

Case 2:08~cv~01541~PD

Filed 1010812008 Page 24 of 34

unlawfully denied (he rights and benefits ()[ United Slates citizenship_ Anwng (ilher things, members oflhc proposed plaintiff dass lwve been unable!(l vote in toe'lL statc. and 111ltinna! elections that have occurred since the nling of their natunllizati"n 8ppHcations, including state and natiomll elections in 2006_ Tbey have heen unnblc to sponsor cxpcditiou~!y their immedlate relatives living abroad for permanent rcsidc!1\;e in the United Slates. They have been unable to It'8vd fredy outside orthe United States because they do not have United Swtcs passports and the guarantee of re-admission into the. country upon their return. Finally, they have been unable 10 apply fbf certain lypes of employment, educational gn'Hlts and louns, and other benefits that are limited iu UJlited SWtes cilizens.

! 00. PlaintitTs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly

nlC situated pursuant to Fcdcnll Rules of Civil Proced.ure 23(,1) and 23(b)(2).

c.Jass. as proposed

by P!aintifTs, consists of':

AJI Javvfu! permanent residents vvi1n have submitted ur will submit. applications
for naturullz(ltion that wi!! be adjudic<>tcd in USCIS Districl Five locMed vvilhin
Pennsylv<:lni(}, and whose applications fix nalura!1lati"n remain unadjudicated more than! SO days after the date of submission because of pending FBI name checks.

j () j. The requirements of Federa! Rules of C!vil Procedure 23(,:1) and 23(b)(2) afC met.

102. The class is 50 numerous that joinder of al! members is impracticable. Upon

infofD1<ltion and beli0C the c!nss consisl.s or at !cast on0 humlrcd persons.

103. There an: questions of law :.md be! common 10 the pmposed class that

predominute ()Vtf any questions affecting nnly the individually Named Plaintiffs, including: (])

\""hether l.ISClS·s actions and omissions, including its failure tu adjudicate the naturalizalion

24

Case 2:08-cv-01547-PD Document 34-1 Filed 10/08/08 Page 9 of 18
Document 32-2 Filed 1010812008 Page 25 of 34
applications of the proposed phHt11.itT class within! gO d,lYS of the date of submission because l1f pending FBI name chccb, and its filllLlre 10 impose deadlines on the completion of FBI name checks in accordance with statu10ry deaJ!incs, violate the Immigration and Nationality Act and implementing regu!atlons and constitute unreasonable deJay and l1n!atvfu! withholding of agency action in violation ufthe Administrative Procedure Act; (2) vvhether the FBr's actizms and omissions, including its failure 10 complete narnc check::; in a timdy i1v·;hion so as to a!!ovii l.ISC!S to adjudicate the n:Jturali?<ll.ion applications dille pruposed pfaintiffdass within 130 days of the date of submission in accordance with statulUry deadline;,;, constitute unn':l.lsonabk deJay and unla'A,'i'u! withholding of agency action in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (3) whether the actions and omissions of USC IS and F!3f resulting. in prolonged and sy::;temic delays in naturalization violate the hnh Amendment due process rights of1ho Named Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class; and (4) whether USC1S's j~li!ure to provide the opportunity for public notice and comment prl(1r to implementing the expanded FBI name check requirement violates the Adrninistnltivc Procedure Act
104. rhe claims of l!lt' Named Plain! ill" arc typical of thc claims of the pro[X)sed cJas~L The Numcd Plaintiffs, like aJJ etass members, arc ];1\v1'ul permanent residents who have submiHed applications for naturalization, and \vhose applications USclS has not adjudicated despite the passage of over 180 days since the date of submission, because of pending FBI name checks, Likc n11 members "fthe proposed class, the Named Plaintiffs bring claims under the Administrative Procedure Ad against both USClS and the FBl and a claim under the Fifth Amendment Due Process C!aus(' against USC1S and the HH.
]05, All of the Named Plainliffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests orIli! mcmber:-; of the proposed class hccau:;c they seck refie-f on behalf of the cbs:-; as a whole und
25

Case 2:08-cv-01547-PD Document 34-1 Filed 10/08/08 Page 10 of 18
Case 2:08-Gv··01547-PD Docurnent 32-2 Filed 10/08/2008 Page 26 of 34
have no interests antagonistic to other members of the class. The named Plaintiffs nrc also represented by pro bono counsel. including the ACUi uf PennsyJv;omiao the ACLU lmmigrants' Rights Project !-lIAS & Council Migration Service of Ph dade! phia, the Natimw]ities Service Center., and the raw firm of Langer Grogan & Diver, P.c., \vhu have exl.(~nsive expertise in class action litigation, including litigation regarding the rights of'immigrnois.
10(L Defendants l13ve acted on grounds that apply generally to the class Illld final injunctive relief ,)r declaratory relief is appropriate to [he class as a "vi1uie,
VIOLATIONS OF THE AllMINISTRATIVE I'IWCEIlVRE ACT ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST IlEFF"NllANTS CHERTOFF, SCl~ANn F1TZPATIllCK
107. Plaintiffs reallege and reassert the i()regoing paragraphs as ifset forth fu!!y herein. !OS, The Administrative Procedure Act require.'> administrative agencies to conclude matters presented to them "within a reasonab!c time." 5 U.S.c. ~ 555. A district court reviewing agency action mn,\' "compel agency nction uniav,{uHy withheld Of unreasonably delayed," .5 1LS.C ~ 706( I). The court also may hold unhnvful and set aside agency action thut, infer ajjo, is J()lmd t(l be: "arbitrary, capricious, <-Ind an aouse or discretion. or othcr\\,'isc not in accordance with law," 5 US,c. ~ 70(,(2)(A)~ "in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority. or limitations, or short of statutory right," 5 () ,S.C. § 706(2)«('); or "without observance of procedure required by law," 5 U..s.c. S 706(2)(U). '"Agency [tcflon" induJcc\, in relevant part "an agency rule, order. license, sanction, relieL or the equivalent or denial thereof, or failure to act" 5 U.S.C, § 55 j (3).
J 09. 'file. ,1(Alons [tnd umissions of Dcft':noants Cb:rtofI Scharl"c!1. :.lIlU FiVpatrick in
railing to adjudicale 1he applications for naturallzaOnn of the proposed plllintill class wi!hin j 80
26

Case 2:08-cv-01547-PD Document 34-1 Filed 10/08/08 Page 11 of 18
Case 2:08-cv-01S47-PD Document 32··2 Fiied 10/08/2008 Page 27 of 34
days oflhc date- of submission because of pending FBl name c.hecks in violation uf g. USC § 1446(d), R U.S.C ~ 157!(b), and 8 CY.!{, § 335, vin/atG the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.H·. § 555(b); 5 U.SC §§ 70Ni). 706(2)(('). 706(7)(D)
Ii O. The actions and omissions of Defendant Chertoff, Scharfell, fllld Firzpatrick in failing to set deadlines for completing fBI name checks and tu take all 1he other reason,lbie steps necessary (0 complete the adjudicnlion oL1pplications for naturalization of the proposed plaintiff class within! flO days ol'the date of submission beC<ll1Sl' of pending FnJ name checks. contrary to
* the rcquircmcnts ofg USc. f446(d), 8 USc. § 1.57!(b), and S c.r,R. ~ 335, viofatc thc
Administrative Pw.:cdurc Act,.5 USC §§ 555(b). 706(1), 706(2)(A). 706(2)(C), 705(2)(D).
* Jll. Dcfcn(hmts have II duty l1nder R U.S.C !446(d), 1{ \),S.c. § !571(b), and 8
CF.R 013j to fin"lly adjudicate PI"intitlS· uatulalintiou "prliedion, withio tho de"dliu!s
imposed by statute and rcgu!;,ttinnc:. Defendants' unlawful (:ondud in ([tiling to do so has resulted in, inter alia, unrc<1sonablc delays in and unlawful withholding ofthc adjudication of Plaintiffs' naturalization applications. As a re.sult of Defendants' actions and uttcr indifference to statutory deadlines, PlainlitT,; have suflcrcd and continue to suffer injury. Dcc!amtory nnd injunctive relief are therefore \vuniwted.
SECONll CLAllI:U'OR HELlEI' VIOLATIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE I'ROCEllllHE ACT ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST llEFENDA.NTS MI.lKASEY ANI) MUELLlili ! !2, Plaintiffs reallege and reasscli the f{m~going paragraphs as ifset t1:xth fully herein. ! U. Tbe Administrat.ive Proc.t,',dl1re. Act requires administrative agencies to conclude matters presented t\) them "within a reasonable time." 5 U.S,C § 555, A district court revic\ving agency action may "compel agent;y action lInlawfuHy vvithheJd or unreasonably delayed," 5 U.S,c. § 706(]). 'j'ne. COllrt also may hold unlavvful ,md set aside agency action that inter alia, is
27

Case 2:08-cv-01547-PD Document 34-1 Filed 10/08/08 Page 12 of 18
Case 2:08-cv-0154T"PD Document 32-2 Filed 1010812008 Page 28 of 34
l()Und to be: ",nbitrary, capriciolls, an ahuse of discretion. or otherwise no1. in accordance with law:' 5 U.S.c. § 70()(2)(A): "in t'XCCSS of statulory ,jurisdiction, :wthnrity, or !imitations. or short
of statulOry ri[~ht" :; U,S.C § 706(2)(C); or "\V!thOll[ observance of procedure required by la\v,"
5 U's,c. § 706(2)(D). "Agency <lclion'" includes, in relevant pan, "an agency rule-, order, license. sanction. rdief or the equivalent or deninl thereof or failure to iJl:C" 5 U.s.c. § 551(13).
! !4. The jaiJure of Defendants Mukascy llnd Mueller 10 timely cornp!etc FBJ m.lmc checks, or tu set or adhere to any tilllcnncs for completion of FBI name checks, with the filii knowledge thn! USClS requires the completion of such name checks for adjudication of app!Jcations fl.,r naturaliz<ll ion uUhe propnsed pJainlill class, and vvith flllf knowle.dge of the statutory deadlines and requirements ror adjudicntion or naturalization applications pursuant to 8
U.S.c. § 1446,8 U.S.C, S !57! (b), and g C.F.R. § 335, violates tht~ Administrative Procedure
Act, j US,c. § 555(b); j lLSL §§ 706(1), 706(2)(A), 706(2)((:), 7110(2)(D), I! 5. Defendants Mukascy and Mudfcr have a dut), pursuant to the Administrative
Procedure Act agrcG!l1ents ",.'jlh USC!S, and Executive Order 10450, to timely complete USClSiniti<lted Ilame checks /()( naturalization applications. given Dclcndnnt.s' full knowledge that FBI name checks are required to Ona!]y adjudicate Plaintiffs' naturalization applicaiions within the deadlines imposed by ~tatute <lnd regu!ations_ Defendants' un13w'fu! conduct in Calling to do so has resulted, infer ulia, in unreasonable delays in and unlawful withholding of the adjudication of Plaint.iffs' naturalization applications" As a result of Defc.ndants' actions and utter indifference to st.atutory deadlines, Plaintirfs have suffered and continue to sutrer injury. Declaratory and :njunctive relief arc therefore \V,llTantec!.
28

Case 2:08-cv-01547-PD Document 34-1 Filed 10/08/08 Page 13 of 18
Case 2:08··cv-01547-PD Document 32··2 Filed 10/08/2008 Page 29 of 34
THlRIl CLAIM FOR RELlIDE VIOLATION OF !lUE I'IWn~SS CLAllSE
Md" PLAINTIFFS AGAINST ALL DEFENIlANTS
116. Plaintiffs reallege and reassert the foregoing paragraphs as iLil't fOlih fully herein. 117. The Due Process Clause (trthe Filth Amendment prohibits 11le governrnent from depriving any person of IIfc, liberty or property without due process of l<.I'w, U.S. Con,<;1., Amend. V. ! ! 1( Defendants Cherton~ Scharfcl"k and Fitzpatrick have a patlcrn, practice, Dr poi icy offi.:!iling io adjudicate the applications for natura!j/iltion uf1he proposed pJa!ntillclnss within 180 days ufthe date of subrnission of such ;;lpplications because of pending FBI name checks, in
violation 0(8 U.S,c. § t446(d), g USc. § 157L and R. C.F.R. § .135.
or I j 9. Defendants Mukascy and Mueller have a pattern, practice, or polley tolerating
systemic, prolonged, and unreasonahle delays in 1he FBI name check pmcess, with full knowledge that. USCIS requires the completion of such -"name cbecks" for adjudication of applications for naturalization of1.hc proposed plaintiffdass \vilhin lhe statutory deadlines.
12.0. Defendants have a pattern. prac1icc, or policy or faUing to set dead!ines j{)!, completing "namc checks"' and to take al) the other reasonable steps nccessary tn complete the adjudication of applications fiJI' naturalization or the prnposed pbintilT class within! 80 days of the date of submission o/" such app!ications. because of pending FB! name checks, in violation of
* ?: U.S.c. § 1446(.1).8 U.S.C § ]571, and 8: CJ:.R. 5.
!21 . The above-descrihed actions and omissions by Defendants violat.e PlainliiTs'
rights to due process ofla\\'. As a result of Defendant.s' actions, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer injury. Dedaralory and injunctive relief are there[t)fe warranted.
29

Case 2:08-cv-01547-PD Document 34-1 Filed 10/08/08 Page 14 of 18 Case 208-cv-01S47-PD Document 32-2 Filed 10/08/2008 Page 30 of 34

!:illLIi1'll Cl,AM FOR RICLlKF

VIOLATION OF NOTICE-ANll-COMMENT RKQ!JlREMENTS
OF nn: ADMINISTRATIVE I'IWCKIl\JRE ACT ALL PLAINTIFFS
AGAINST IJEFENIJANTS CHEIUOFf, SCHARF:!8Y ANIl FITZPATRICK

122. Plaintiffs reallege and reassert the foregoing rX:1fdgraphs as jf set forth fully berein,

!13. The actions of Defendants Chc:r(on~ Scharfen. and Fitzpatrick in November 2002

to expand the FBl name check for naturaJi;.n1ioll ilpp!ications constitute a nile within the

meaning of 5 U.s.c. § 55! (4).

124. The Administrative Procedure Ace.5 L ,S.c. § 553. requires adrninislrative

agencies to provide a notjcc-and-commen1. period prior to implementing 11 substanlive rule.

induding a ruk lhat is a (kparturc from prior policy and pract.ice and that has 11 substanfial

adverse ciTed upon a large number of those afll:ded.
us. The actions and omissions of Defendants ChcrlnfL Scl1arfen, and Fitzpatrick in

faHing to provide a nOlice-and~cornmeni period prior lu the November 2002 expansion of the
FBl name check requirernent violated 5 U.S.c. S553 in that the: expansion constituted a

suhstantivc rule !bal depmied from prior policy and prucfit:e and has had a substantiw adverse

impact upon a large number of those affected, namefy naturalization applicants.

l26. As a result of Defendants' actions and omissions, PlaintIffs \-vert' injured, and

declaratory and injunctive relief is appropriate.

PRA VEl{ FOR HELIEF

WHEREFORE" Plainlin:.., respectfully request that the Court:

1. Assumejurisdiction over the matter.

2.

Certify the class nr Plaintiffs.

3()

Case 2:08-cv-01547-PD Document 34-1 Filed 10/08/08 Page 15 of 18 Document 32~2 Filed 1Q/08/2008 Page 31 of 34

'1.

Vv'ith respect to the certifkd class of P!aintifls, order Ddcncbnts to: (a) take all

necessary steps to complete aU FBI name checks of cJilSS members within a reasonJb!e lilm~

peril)d not to exceed 45 days from the date oCthe Cml!1's nrdcr~ and (bi fina!!y adjudicate an nalura1i/,ut ion applications of class rm'mbers within a reasonable time period not to exceed 90

days jiom the date ()fthe Court's order.

4.

Enjoin Defendants and nrder them to: (;.1) take "dl necessary steps to complete all

FBl name checks of naturalization app1icants within 90 days from the date of submission of the
an applications; (b) and flnnlly adjudicate nUluralization applications within 180 days from the

date of submission.

5. Order Defendants Chcrtoff, Scharfen, and Fitzp<ltrick to revoke and suspend the

November 2002 expansion of the FBI Jl(lJllC check witb respect to l1aturaJ!zation applications,

until such time as Defendants have. cumpltted promulgating it rule f()lknving the Administrative Procedure Act's process for noti(:c and commen! by the public

6" Issue a declaratory judgment hotding unla\vild:

(a) the actions and umissions of Defendants ChertofL Scharfen, and

Fitzpatrick in failing tQ adjudicate applications for naturalization witbin ! 80 days of the date of
submission, because oj' pending Fm flame cheCK!'.;

(b) the actions and omissions of DdcnJants Mukflsey and Mueller in I~ti!ing
10 timely complete FBI name checks t.o ,11)ow users to adjudicate applications J1x naturalization

within! 80 days oft110 dafe of submission; and

(c) the actions and omissions ofaH Ddi;'ndants in failing to set deadlines and
to take all necessary steps to adjudicate ,1ppJ ications for nMura!ilation within 180 days of the

date of submission.

11

Case 2:08-cv-01547-PD Document 34-1 Filed 10/08/08 Page 16 of 18 Case 2:08-cv-01S47-PD Document 32-2 Filed 1010812008 Page 32 of 34

7.

Award reasonable attorney fees and costs purSll,Hlt to the Equal Access tu Justice

Act 5 USc. § SOck 28 U.S.C § 2412.

8,

Grant any and aU further relieftllis Court dccmsjusf and proper.

Respectfully sublniHcd.

is! )01111 1. (in2llil.I_'_ _ John Grogan edward Diver
LAN(;FR GROGAN & D!VF!{, p.e
]717 Arch Street, Suite 4130 Phi!flde!phia, PA 19103 (215) 320-5660
Ayodcle ()ansallo Judith Bernstein-Baker BJAS & COUNCIL t\:l!(;j{Al!ON SERVICE
OF P! []I AUF.! ,P I lUI, INC
2100 Arch Street, y"d Hoor Phitaddphia, Pa. ]9103 (215) 832-(1000
Mary Catherine R()per \Vi told J. Walczak
AMU~!CAN ClVH, LlBERTJES UNION ," PFNNSYLVA\!It\
P.O. Box 40008 Philadelphia, P,L ! 9106 (215) 592·1513
Kristine C. Mehok Steven Larin
NATIONAl JTlFS SFl\Vler,s CFNITR,
12! 6 Arch $lrce1, 4th Floor Philadelphia, Pu.J9107 (215) 891-8400

32

Case 2:08-cv-01547-PD Document 34-1 Filed 10/08/08 Page 17 of 18
Case 2:08-cv-01547-PD Document 32-2 Filed 1010812008 Page 33 of 34
CcciJ!ia D. Wang
AMLR1CAN CiV1L LlBFRTll-::'; UNroN FOliNJM nON lJVIMtG!{ANTS' R!{l!l l'S PROJJT]
39 Drumm S(reet San Francisco, CA 94!! j (415) 343-0775
Dated: Octohcr 8, 2008

Case Case

22::0088~-ccvv·-·0O1'5154477--PPDD

Document 34-1 Document

Filed 10/08/08 Page 18 of 18 Filed 10/08/2008 Page 34 of 34

34

 
 Case: 2:08-cv-1547 As of: 02/14/2013 08:45 AM EST 1 of 11
CLOSED,SPECIAL
United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:08−cv−01547−PD

IGNATYEV et al v. CHERTOFF et al Assigned to: HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND Cause: 05:551 Administrative Procedure Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 04/01/2008 Date Terminated: 05/14/2009 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

MIKHAIL IGNATYEV

represented by CECILLIA D. WANG ACLU IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT 39 DRUMM STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 415−343−0775 Email: cwang@aclu.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JOHN J. GROGAN LANGER GROGAN &DIVER PC THREE LOGAN SQUARE 1717 ARCH ST STE 4130 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 215−320−5660 Email: jgrogan@langergrogan.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JUDITH A. BERNSTEIN−BAKER HIAS &COUNCIL MIGRATION SERV 2100 ARCH ST PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 215−832−0900 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

AYODELE A. GANSALLO HIAS AND COUNCIL 2100 ARCH ST., 3RD FL PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 215−832−0900 Fax: 215−832−0919 Email: ayogansallo@yahoo.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

EDWARD A. DIVER LANGER GROGAN &DIVER PC THREE LOGAN SQUARE 1717 ARCH ST STE 4130 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 215−320−5660 Fax: 215−320−5703 Email: ndiver@langergrogan.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

KRISTINE C. MEHOK NATIONALITY SERVICE CENTER 1216 ARCH ST., 4TH FL PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107

Case: 2:08-cv-1547 As of: 02/14/2013 08:45 AM EST 2 of 11

215−893−8400 Email: kmehok@nationalitiesservice.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MARY CATHERINE ROPER ACLU OF PA PO BOX 40008 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106 215−592−1513 Email: mroper@aclupa.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
NATALIYA PETROVNA DEMIDCHIK ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED TERMINATED: 04/22/2008

represented by JOHN J. GROGAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/22/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY
EDWARD A. DIVER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MARY CATHERINE ROPER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
MYROSLAVA VASYLIVNA MELNYK

represented by CECILLIA D. WANG (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JOHN J. GROGAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

EDWARD A. DIVER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

KRISTINE C. MEHOK (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MARY CATHERINE ROPER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff MOHAMED S. ABDELWAHAB

represented by CECILLIA D. WANG (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JOHN J. GROGAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

EDWARD A. DIVER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:08-cv-1547 As of: 02/14/2013 08:45 AM EST 3 of 11

Plaintiff EUGENE KOIKOI
Plaintiff ABDI MOHMAED ALI
Plaintiff AHMED BELAGUID

KRISTINE C. MEHOK (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARY CATHERINE ROPER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by CECILLIA D. WANG (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JOHN J. GROGAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
EDWARD A. DIVER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
KRISTINE C. MEHOK (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARY CATHERINE ROPER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by CECILLIA D. WANG (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JOHN J. GROGAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
EDWARD A. DIVER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
KRISTINE C. MEHOK (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARY CATHERINE ROPER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by CECILLIA D. WANG (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JOHN J. GROGAN (See above for address)

Case: 2:08-cv-1547 As of: 02/14/2013 08:45 AM EST 4 of 11

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

EDWARD A. DIVER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

KRISTINE C. MEHOK (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MARY CATHERINE ROPER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff ARSHAD ALI BAIG

represented by CECILLIA D. WANG (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

EDWARD A. DIVER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JOHN J. GROGAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

KRISTINE C. MEHOK (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MARY CATHERINE ROPER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff MIRZA MOHANNED BAIG

represented by CECILLIA D. WANG (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JOHN J. GROGAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

EDWARD A. DIVER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

KRISTINE C. MEHOK (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MARY CATHERINE ROPER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
MARIAM BAIG on behalf of themselves and all others

represented by CECILLIA D. WANG (See above for address)

Case: 2:08-cv-1547 As of: 02/14/2013 08:45 AM EST 5 of 11

similarly situated

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JOHN J. GROGAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

EDWARD A. DIVER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

KRISTINE C. MEHOK (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MARY CATHERINE ROPER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff ADEL KHALIL

represented by JOHN J. GROGAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff CARLOTTA HOPE

represented by JOHN J. GROGAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff VALENTINA CRUZ

represented by JOHN J. GROGAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
MICHAEL CHERTOFF IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY

represented by ELIZABETH J. STEVENS US DEPT OF JUSTICE POBOX 878 BEN FRANKLIN STATION WASHINGTON, DC 20044 202−616−9752 Fax: 202−233−0397 Email: elizabeth.stevens@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
KATHRYN L. MOORE U.S. DEPT OF JUSTICE 450 5TH ST. NW WASHINGTON, DC 20001 202−305−7099 Email: kathryn.moore@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
RICHARD M. BERNSTEIN

Case: 2:08-cv-1547 As of: 02/14/2013 08:45 AM EST 6 of 11

U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 615 CHESTNUT ST SUITE 1250 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106−4476 215−861−8334 Fax: 215−861−8349 Email: richard.bernstein@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
MICHAEL MUKASEY IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES

represented by ELIZABETH J. STEVENS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

KATHRYN L. MOORE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

RICHARD M. BERNSTEIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
ROBERT S. MUELLER IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

represented by ELIZABETH J. STEVENS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

KATHRYN L. MOORE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

RICHARD M. BERNSTEIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
EMILIO T. GONZALEZ IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES TERMINATED: 10/10/2008

represented by KATHRYN L. MOORE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
RICHARD M. BERNSTEIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant
EVANGELIA KLAPAKIS IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ACTING DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF THE U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT OFFICE TERMINATED: 10/10/2008

represented by KATHRYN L. MOORE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
RICHARD M. BERNSTEIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant

Case: 2:08-cv-1547 As of: 02/14/2013 08:45 AM EST 7 of 11

JONATHAN SCHARFREN in his official capacity as Director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

represented by ELIZABETH J. STEVENS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

KATHRYN L. MOORE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
KAREN FITZGERALD in her official capacity as Acting District Director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Philadelphia District Office

represented by ELIZABETH J. STEVENS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
KATHRYN L. MOORE (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 04/01/2008 04/01/2008 04/04/2008
04/11/2008 04/16/2008 04/17/2008 04/18/2008 04/21/2008

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against all defendants ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 947209.), filed by MIKHAIL IGNATYEV, NATALIYA PETROVNA DEMIDCHIK. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Designation Form, # 3 Tracking Form)(tj, ) (Entered: 04/02/2008)
Summons 7 Issued; 6 Mailed to counsel and 1 Forwarded to the U.S. Attorney's Office 4/2/08 as to MICHAEL CHERTOFF, MICHAEL MUKASEY, ROBERT S. MUELLER, EMILIO T. GONZALEZ, EVANGELIA KLAPAKIS. (tj, ) (Entered: 04/02/2008)
2 Acceptance of Service by U.S. Attorney Re: accepted summons and complaint for MICHAEL CHERTOFF on 4/4/2008, answer due 6/3/2008; MICHAEL MUKASEY on 4/4/2008, answer due 6/3/2008; ROBERT S. MUELLER on 4/4/2008, answer due 6/3/2008; EMILIO T. GONZALEZ on 4/4/2008, answer due 6/3/2008; EVANGELIA KLAPAKIS on 4/4/2008, answer due 6/3/2008. (jl, ) (Entered: 04/04/2008)
3 SUMMONS Returned Executed by MIKHAIL IGNATYEV, NATALIYA PETROVNA DEMIDCHIK re: Edward A. Diver served Summons and Complaint upon MICHAEL CHERTOFF, MICHAEL MUKASEY, ROBERT S. MUELLER, EMILIO T. GONZALEZ, EVANGELIA KLAPAKIS by U.S. Attorney. (DIVER, EDWARD) (Entered: 04/11/2008)
4 MEMORANDUM AND ORDERED THAT THIS CASE, IGNATYEV VS CHERTOFF, 08−1547, IS REFERRED BACK TO THE CLERK'S OFFICE FOR RANDOM REASSIGNMENT; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE MICHAEL M. BAYLSON ON 4/16/08. 4/17/08 ENTERED AND E−MAILED AND FAXED.(jl, ) (Entered: 04/17/2008)
5 NOTICE of Appearance by RICHARD M. BERNSTEIN on behalf of MICHAEL CHERTOFF, MICHAEL MUKASEY, ROBERT S. MUELLER, EMILIO T. GONZALEZ, EVANGELIA KLAPAKIS with Certificate of Service(BERNSTEIN, RICHARD) (Entered: 04/17/2008)
6 ORDER THAT THE ABOVE CAPTIONED CASE IS REASSIGNED FROM THE CALENDER OF THE MICHAEL M. BAYLSON TO THE CALENDER OF THE HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND; ETC.. SIGNED BY MICHAEL E. KUNZ ON 4/18/08. 4/18/08 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 04/18/2008)
7 Oral MOTION to Certify Class filed by MIKHAIL IGNATYEV.Memorandum, Certificate of Service, Proposed Order. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion, # 2 Exhibit A to John Grogan Declaration, # 3 Exhibit B to John Grogan Declaration, # 4 Exhibit C to John Grogan Declaration, # 5 Exhibit D

Case: 2:08-cv-1547 As of: 02/14/2013 08:45 AM EST 8 of 11

04/22/2008 04/22/2008 04/22/2008 04/22/2008 04/24/2008
04/25/2008 04/30/2008 05/05/2008 05/07/2008 05/07/2008

to John Grogan Declaration, # 6 Exhibit G to John Grogan Declaration, # 7 Exhibit H to John Grogan Declaration, # 8 Exhibit I to John Grogan Declaration, # 9 Exhibit J to John Grogan Declaration, # 10 Exhibit K to John Grogan Declaration, # 11 Exhibit L, # 12 Exhibit M to John Grogan Declaration, # 13 Exhibit N to John Grogan Declaration, # 14 Exhibit O to John Grogan Declaration, # 15 Exhibit E to John Grogan Declaration, # 16 Exhibit F part 1 to John Grogan Declaration, # 17 Exhibit F part 2 of 2 to John Grogan Declaration, # 18 Declaration of John Grogan, # 19 Text of Proposed Order)(GROGAN, JOHN) (Entered: 04/21/2008)
8 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against MICHAEL CHERTOFF, MICHAEL MUKASEY, ROBERT S. MUELLER, EMILIO T. GONZALEZ, EVANGELIA KLAPAKIS, filed by MOHAMED S. ABDELWAHAB, ABDI MOHMAED ALI, AHMED BELAGUID, ARSHAD ALI BAIG, MIRZA MOHANNED BAIG, MARIAM BAIG, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.(jl, ) (Entered: 04/22/2008)
9 NOTICE of Appearance by MARY CATHERINE ROPER on behalf of MOHAMED S. ABDELWAHAB, ABDI MOHMAED ALI, AHMED BELAGUID, ARSHAD ALI BAIG, MIRZA MOHANNED BAIG, MARIAM BAIG with Certificate of Service(ROPER, MARY) (Entered: 04/22/2008)
10 NOTICE of Appearance by MARY CATHERINE ROPER on behalf of MIKHAIL IGNATYEV, MYROSLAVA VASYLIVNA MELNYK, EUGENE KOIKOI with Certificate of Service(ROPER, MARY) (Entered: 04/22/2008)
11 NOTICE of Appearance by KATHRYN L. MOORE on behalf of MICHAEL CHERTOFF, MICHAEL MUKASEY, ROBERT S. MUELLER, EMILIO T. GONZALEZ, EVANGELIA KLAPAKIS (MOORE, KATHRYN) (Entered: 04/22/2008)
12 STIPULATION for Extension of Time For Government's Response to ClassCertification Motion by MIKHAIL IGNATYEV, MYROSLAVA VASYLIVNA MELNYK, MOHAMED S. ABDELWAHAB, NATALIYA PETROVNA DEMIDCHIK, EUGENE KOIKOI, ABDI MOHMAED ALI, AHMED BELAGUID, ARSHAD ALI BAIG, MIRZA MOHANNED BAIG, MARIAM BAIG, MICHAEL CHERTOFF, MICHAEL MUKASEY, ROBERT S. MUELLER, EMILIO T. GONZALEZ, EVANGELIA KLAPAKIS. (BERNSTEIN, RICHARD) (FILED IN ERROR BY ATTORNEY; COPY FORWARDED TO JUDGE FOR APPROVAL) Modified on 4/25/2008 (nd). (Entered: 04/24/2008)
13 APPLICATION by MIKHAIL IGNATYEV, MYROSLAVA VASYLIVNA MELNYK, MOHAMED S. ABDELWAHAB, EUGENE KOIKOI, ABDI MOHMAED ALI, AHMED BELAGUID, ARSHAD ALI BAIG, MIRZA MOHANNED BAIG, MARIAM BAIG FOR CECILLIA WANG TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE, STATEMENT, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (jl, ) (Entered: 04/25/2008)
14 STIPULATION AND ORDER THAT THE TIME WITHIN WHICH DEFENDANTS MAY RESPOND TO THE MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION IS EXTENDED TO AND INCLUDING 5/22/08; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 4/30/08. 4/30/08 ENTERED AND E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 04/30/2008)
15 First MOTION/APPLICATION for Pro Hac Vice OF ANODELE A. GANALLO filed by MIKHAIL IGNATYEV, SPONSOR STATEMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE..(GANSALLO, AYODELE) Modified on 5/6/2008 (afm, ). (Entered: 05/05/2008)
16 ORDER THAT THE APPLICATION FOR PRO HACE VICE OF CECILLA D. WANG IS GRANTED.SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 5/6/08. 5/7/08 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E−MAILED.(ah) (Entered: 05/07/2008)
17 ORDER THAT THE APPLICATION FOR PRO HACE VICE OF AYODELE GANSALLO IS GRANTED.SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 5/6/08.5/7/08 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E−MAILED.(ah) (Entered: 05/07/2008)

Case: 2:08-cv-1547 As of: 02/14/2013 08:45 AM EST 9 of 11

05/07/2008
05/12/2008 05/22/2008 05/22/2008 05/22/2008 05/23/2008 06/03/2008 06/05/2008
06/16/2008
06/16/2008 07/08/2008
07/28/2008

18 NOTICE of Appearance by EDWARD A. DIVER on behalf of MIKHAIL IGNATYEV, MYROSLAVA VASYLIVNA MELNYK, MOHAMED S. ABDELWAHAB, NATALIYA PETROVNA DEMIDCHIK, EUGENE KOIKOI, ABDI MOHMAED ALI, AHMED BELAGUID, ARSHAD ALI BAIG, MIRZA MOHANNED BAIG, MARIAM BAIG (DIVER, EDWARD) (Entered: 05/07/2008)
19 APPLICATION by MIKHAIL IGNATYEV FOR AYODELE GANSALLO TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE, STATEMENT, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (jl, ) (Entered: 05/12/2008)
20 Memorandum in Opposition re 7 Oral MOTION to Certify Class filed by MICHAEL MUKASEY, ROBERT S. MUELLER, EMILIO T. GONZALEZ, EVANGELIA KLAPAKIS. (MOORE, KATHRYN) Certificate of Service attached. Modified on 5/28/2008 (nds). (Entered: 05/22/2008)
21 Exhibit 1 in Support of Memorandum/Response in Opposition re 7 Oral MOTION to Certify Class Exhibit 1 filed by MICHAEL CHERTOFF, MICHAEL MUKASEY, ROBERT S. MUELLER, EMILIO T. GONZALEZ, EVANGELIA KLAPAKIS. (MOORE, KATHRYN) Modified on 5/28/2008 (nds). (Entered: 05/22/2008)
22 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by MICHAEL CHERTOFF, MICHAEL MUKASEY, ROBERT S. MUELLER, EMILIO T. GONZALEZ, EVANGELIA KLAPAKIS.Memorandum, Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(MOORE, KATHRYN) (Entered: 05/22/2008)
23 NOTICE of Appearance by KRISTINE C. MEHOK on behalf of MIKHAIL IGNATYEV, MYROSLAVA VASYLIVNA MELNYK, MOHAMED S. ABDELWAHAB, EUGENE KOIKOI, ABDI MOHMAED ALI, AHMED BELAGUID, ARSHAD ALI BAIG, MIRZA MOHANNED BAIG, MARIAM BAIG with Certificate of Service(MEHOK, KRISTINE) (Entered: 05/23/2008)
24 REPLY Memorandum in Support of Motion re 7 Oral MOTION to Certify Class filed by MIKHAIL IGNATYEV, Certificate of Service. (GROGAN, JOHN) Modified on 6/5/2008 (nd). (Entered: 06/03/2008)
25 RESPONSE in Opposition re 22 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by MIKHAIL IGNATYEV, MYROSLAVA VASYLIVNA MELNYK, MOHAMED S. ABDELWAHAB, NATALIYA PETROVNA DEMIDCHIK, EUGENE KOIKOI, ABDI MOHMAED ALI, AHMED BELAGUID, ARSHAD ALI BAIG, MIRZA MOHANNED BAIG, MARIAM BAIG, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (ROPER, MARY) Modified on 6/9/2008 (afm, ). (Entered: 06/05/2008)
26 REPLY to Response to Motion re 22 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by MICHAEL CHERTOFF, MICHAEL MUKASEY, ROBERT S. MUELLER, EMILIO T. GONZALEZ, EVANGELIA KLAPAKIS. (MOORE, KATHRYN) (FILED IN ERROR BY ATTORNEY; ATTORNEY WILL RE−FILE CORRECT DOCUMENT) Modified on 6/16/2008 (nd). (Entered: 06/16/2008)
27 REPLY to Response to Motion re 22 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by MICHAEL CHERTOFF, MICHAEL MUKASEY, ROBERT S. MUELLER, EMILIO T. GONZALEZ, EVANGELIA KLAPAKIS, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (MOORE, KATHRYN) Modified on 6/18/2008 (afm, ). (Entered: 06/16/2008)
28 ORDERED THAT ORAL ARGUMENT WILL BE HELD ON THE ABOVE LISTED ON 7/28/08 AT 3:00 P.M. THE PARTIES SHALL BE PREPARED TO ADDRESS PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 7/8/08. 7/8/08 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 07/08/2008)
29 ORDER THAT THE HEARING CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR JULY 28, 2008, IS POSTPONED. THE MATTER WILL BE RESCHEDULED BY ORDER OF THE COURT. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 07/25/08. 07/28/08 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E−MAILED.(ac, )

Case: 2:08-cv-1547 As of: 02/14/2013 08:45 AM EST 10 of 11

08/13/2008
09/15/2008 10/08/2008 10/08/2008
10/10/2008
10/10/2008 10/14/2008 10/22/2008 11/14/2008 12/22/2008 01/28/2009

(Entered: 07/28/2008)
30 ORDER THAT ORAL ARGUMENT WILL BE HELD ON 9/16/2008 AT 2:00 PM BEFORE THE HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND TO ADDRESS THE MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND MOTION TO DISMISS. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 8/13/08. 8/14/08 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE, E−MAILED TO COUNSEL.(gs) (Entered: 08/14/2008)
31 ORDERED THAT ORAL ARGUMENT IN THE ABOVE−LISTED CASE IS RESCHEDULED FOR 10/10/08 AT 1:00 P.M.; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 9/15/08. 9/15/08 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 09/15/2008)
32 MOTION to Amend/Correct File Second Amended Complaint filed by MIKHAIL IGNATYEV.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Second Amended Complaint, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed form of Order)(GROGAN, JOHN) (Entered: 10/08/2008)
34 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT against JONATHAN SCHARFREN, KAREN FITZGERALD, MICHAEL CHERTOFF, MICHAEL MUKASEY, ROBERT S. MUELLER, filed by MIKHAIL IGNATYEV, MYROSLAVA VASYLIVNA MELNYK, MOHAMED S. ABDELWAHAB, EUGENE KOIKOI, ABDI MOHMAED ALI, AHMED BELAGUID, ARSHAD ALI BAIG, MIRZA MOHANNED BAIG, MARIAM BAIG. (Attachments: # 1 part 1)(jl, ) Modified on 10/10/2008 (jl, ). (Entered: 10/10/2008)
33 ORDER THAT PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT IS GRANTED. THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO FILE THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOC.32−2) EXHIBIT A TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION, OF RECORD AS OF 10/8/08; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 10/10/08. 10/10/08 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 10/10/2008)
AMENDED Summons Issued as to JONATHAN SCHARFREN, KAREN FITZGERALD, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General Forwarded To: JOHN GROGAN on 10/10/08 (jl, ) (Entered: 10/10/2008)
35 ORDER THAT DEFTS' MOTION TO DISMISS IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE PENDING POSSIBLE DISCOVERY, AS OUTLINED HEREIN. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 10/10/2008.10/14/2008 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E−MAILED.(md) (Entered: 10/14/2008)
36 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 10/10/08 before Judge DIAMOND. Court Reporter: JOHN STASNY. HEARING (jl, ) (Entered: 10/22/2008)
37 ANSWER to 34 Amended Complaint WITH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE, by JONATHAN SCHARFREN, KAREN FITZGERALD, MICHAEL CHERTOFF, MICHAEL MUKASEY, ROBERT S. MUELLER, EMILIO T. GONZALEZ, EVANGELIA KLAPAKIS.(MOORE, KATHRYN) Modified on 11/18/2008 (afm, ). (Entered: 11/14/2008)
38 ORDERED THAT PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO CERTIFY CLASS IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. THE PARTIES SHALL ATTEND A STATUS CONFERENCE IN MY CHAMBERS ON 1/27/09 AT 2:00 P.M.; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 12/22/08. 12/22/08 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 12/22/2008)
39 ORDER THAT PLAINTIFFS SHALL NOT PRESENTLY BE ENTITLED TO TAKE DISCOVERY RESPECTING THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WITH NATURALIZTION APPLICATIONS PENDING FOR MORE THAN 180 DAYS THROUGH MORE THAN FOUR YEARS. IN DEPOSING DEFENDANTS USCIS RULE 30 (b)(6), PLAINTIFF SHALL BE ENTITLED TO EXPLORE WITH THE WITNESS−−AND THE WITNESS SHALL BE PREPARED TO TESTIFY REGARDING−−THE PROCEDURES RELATED TO THE COMPLETION OF AN FBI NAME CHECK IN PLACE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER PLAINTIFFS FILED THE INSTANT LITIGATION; ETC.. SIGNED BY

Case: 2:08-cv-1547 As of: 02/14/2013 08:45 AM EST 11 of 11

01/29/2009 01/29/2009 01/29/2009 05/13/2009
05/14/2009
05/15/2009

HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 1/27/09. 1/28/09 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E−MAILED.(jl, ) (Entered: 01/28/2009)
40 Letter from KATHRYN L. MOORE TO MR. GROGAN AND MS. ROPER RE: CERTAIN STATEMENTS. (jl, ) (Entered: 01/30/2009)
41 Letter from JOHN GROGAN TO MS. MOORE AND MR. BERNSTEIN RE: CERTAIN STATEMENTS. (jl, ) (Entered: 01/30/2009)
42 Letter from KATHRYN MOORE TO JOHN GROGAN TO JUDGE DIAMOND RE: CERTAIN STATEMENTS. (jl, ) (Entered: 01/30/2009)
43 NOTICE of Appearance by ELIZABETH J. STEVENS on behalf of JONATHAN SCHARFREN, KAREN FITZGERALD, MICHAEL CHERTOFF, MICHAEL MUKASEY, ROBERT S. MUELLER with Certificate of Service(STEVENS, ELIZABETH) (Entered: 05/13/2009)
44 STIPULATION of Dismissal Under Rule 41 by JONATHAN SCHARFREN, KAREN FITZGERALD, MICHAEL CHERTOFF, MICHAEL MUKASEY, ROBERT S. MUELLER. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(STEVENS, ELIZABETH) (Entered: 05/14/2009)
45 STIPULATION AND ORDER THAT PLAINTIFFS AGREE TO DISMISS THEIR CLAIMS WITHOUT PREJUDICE, PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 41 (a)(2). DISMISSAL OF THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT IS PROPER UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 23 (e) AS NO CLASS HAS BEEN CERTIFIED IN THIS ACTION. EACH PARTY WILL BEAR ITS OWN COSTS AND FEES; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 5/15/09. 5/15/09 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E−MAILED(jl, ) (Entered: 05/15/2009)