Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01895/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01895-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NISHAN SINGH,

Plaintiff,

v.

JONATHAN CRAWFORD, et. al,

Defendants.

1:13-cv-01895 MJS 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND

[Doc. 9]

This is an immigration case in which Plaintiff Nishan Singh seeks to compel action 

on his long pending application for naturalization. Both parties have consented to 

Magistrate Judge jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (ECF Nos. 7-8.) On January 29, 

2014, Defendants filed a motion to remand. (ECF No. 9.) On February 13, 2014, Plaintiff 

filed an opposition to the motion. (ECF No. 12.) 

Plaintiff, a resident of the Eastern District of California, filed an application for 

naturalization with Defendants United States Citizenship and Immigration Services 

("USCIS") on or about December 15, 2011. He was interviewed and tested by USCIS on 

or about May 29, 2012. Reportedly his application was approved on July 31, 2012. 

Case 1:13-cv-01895-MJS Document 14 Filed 03/07/14 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

However, because USCIS later determined its approval had been given contrary to 

agency procedure and thus erroneously, Plaintiff has never been administered the oath 

of citizenship.

The law provides that if USCIS fails to make a determination on a naturalization 

application within 120 days of the date of the agency interview, the applicant may apply 

to the district court for a hearing on the matter. 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). Plaintiff so proceeds 

here.

Once a lawsuit is filed under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), the Court has exclusive 

jurisdiction over the matter. U.S. v. Hovsepian, 359 F.3d 1144, 1160 (9th Cir. 2004). The 

Court has authority to make a judicial determination of naturalization or remand the 

matter to USCIS with instructions to adjudicate. 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) (“the court has 

jurisdiction over the matter and may either determine the matter or remand the matter, 

with appropriate instructions, to the [USCIS] to determine the matter.”). The decision 

whether to remand is entirely within this Court’s discretion. Hovsepian, 359 F.3d at 1161.

In this case, USCIS has exceeded the 120 day requirement more than four times 

over. It maintains it is nevertheless moving the case forward diligently, and attaches a 

declaration reflecting its initiation of corrective action in October 2012. USICS asks the 

court to remand the case to allow the agency to complete action on the application. 

Plaintiff opposes remand because his counsel has concerns about the integrity of a 

member of the agency’s local staff.1 

USCIS’s failure to resolve this matter within the sixteen months which have 

passed since it requested the missing file suggests anything but diligence. The delay is 

disturbing and not explained. Nevertheless, the Court believes that all parties and the 

 

1

Plaintiff’s concerns are based on UCCIS Service Officer’s alleged improper conduct in a 

separate matter. The Supreme Court has held bias on behalf of judicial officials requires a showing of 

"deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible." Liteky v. United States, 

510 U.S. 540, 555, 114 S. Ct. 1147, 127 L. Ed. 2d 474 (1994); United States v. McTiernan, 695 F.3d 882, 

891-892 (9th Cir. 2012). Plaintiff's claim that the Service Officer used false evidence in another proceeding 

is not sufficient to raise a claim of bias here. The alleged misconduct was not directed towards Plaintiff, 

and there is nothing but counsel’s unsupported apprehension to suggest it will be.

Case 1:13-cv-01895-MJS Document 14 Filed 03/07/14 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

court will benefit from the agency bringing its expertise to bear on this matter, and, by 

requiring action within a short period of time the Court can prevent further delay. 

Accordingly, the request to remand is granted. 

This is in keeping with courts’ traditional deference to agency expertise. The 

executive branch is uniquely well-suited to determine Plaintiff’s eligibility for 

naturalization. INS v. Orlando Ventura, 5 U.S. 12, 17 (2002) (“The agency can bring its 

expertise to bear upon the matter; it can evaluate the evidence; it can make an initial 

determination; and, in doing so, it can, through informed discussion and analysis, help a 

court later determine whether its decision exceeds the leeway the law provides.”). 

Although district courts have jurisdiction to decide applications for naturalization, the vast 

majority of courts remand these matters to the USCIS to decide in the first instance 

whether to grant or deny citizenship. See Maniulit v. Mayorkas, 12-cv-4501, 2012 WL 

5471142, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2012) (“[U]nlike district courts, USCIS is charged with

deciding naturalization applications frequently and is therefore better equipped to apply 

immigration laws thoroughly and consistently.”); Roberts v. Holder, No. 11–1941, 2012 

WL 2563880, at *2 (D.Md. June 29, 2012) (“[The] vast majority of courts that have 

exercised jurisdiction over a case pursuant to § 1447(b) have remanded the matter back 

to CIS”) (citation omitted); Volovnikov v. DHS, No. 07–3607(EDL), 2008 WL 666023, at 

*3 (N.D.Cal. March 6, 2008) (listing district courts which remanded to the USCIS); Paten 

v. Hansen, No. 07–0792 2008 WL 148947, at *1 (S.D.Ohio Jan.4, 2008) (“Almost without 

exception, courts have elected to remand [naturalization] questions to the USCIS.”)); see 

also Deng v. Chertoff, No. 06–7697(SI), 2007 WL 1501736 (N.D.Cal. May 22, 2007) 

(“The Court finds it appropriate to remand this action to USCIS because that agency has 

considerably more expertise than the in adjudicating naturalization petitions.”).

If naturalization is denied on remand, Plaintiff has the right to seek review from an 

immigration judge. 8 C.F.R. § 336.2(b). The immigration judge presiding over the 

appellate hearing must be "an officer other than the officer who conducted the original 

examination," who will be able to address any claims of improper conduct during the 

Case 1:13-cv-01895-MJS Document 14 Filed 03/07/14 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

naturalization determination. Id. Plaintiff will also have retained his right to return to this 

Court after a hearing before an immigration officer pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c). Such 

review ensures that Plaintiff will have an opportunity to address any issues with the 

naturalization adjudication, if desired. 

USCIS advises it has committed itself to completing its adjudication of this matter 

within 60 days. Accordingly, the Court’s order of remand pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) 

will require adjudication by USCIS within 60 days.

Accordingly, for the reasons and on the terms set forth above, the matter is 

remanded to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services pursuant to 8 

U.S.C. § 1447(b). The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services is hereby 

ordered to complete its adjudication of this application within 60 days from the date of 

this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 6, 2014 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01895-MJS Document 14 Filed 03/07/14 Page 4 of 4