Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00734/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00734-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LIANG LIU, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF,

Defendant. /

No. C 07-00734 CRB

ORDER DENYING 

MOTION TO DISMISS

The motion now pending before the Court presents a question of law that is unsettled

in the Ninth Circuit: does a federal court have jurisdiction to adjudicate a lawsuit that seeks a

writ of mandamus to compel the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service

(“USCIS”) to adjudicate a pending petition for adjustment of status?

Federal courts have reached different conclusions on this question. Compare

Grinburg v. Swacina, 478 F.Supp.2d 1350, 1352 (S.D. Fla. 2007) (holding that a federal

court “lacks jurisdiction” to review the “pace” at which the executive branch reviews an

application for adjustment of status); Safadi v. Howard, 466 F.Supp.2d 696, 698 (E.D. Va.

2006) (same); and Zheng v. Reno, 166 F.Supp.2d 875, 880-81 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (same), with

Yu v. Brown, 36 F.Supp.2d 922, 932 (D.N.M. 1999) (holding that a federal court “does have

subject matter jurisdiction” to compel the adjudication of an application for adjustment

//

Case 3:07-cv-00734-CRB Document 16 Filed 07/23/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

of status “within a reasonable time”); Kim v. Ashcroft, 340 F.Supp.2d 384, 389 (S.D.N.Y.

2004); and Paunescu v. INS, 76 F.Supp.2d 896, 901 (N.D. Ill. 1999) (same).

The parties both recognize that courts in the Northern District of California have

generally agreed that jurisdiction exists. See, e.g., Singh v. Still, 470 F.Supp.2d 1064, 1067-

68 & n.6 (N.D. Cal. 2006); see also Reply at 4 (citing Razaq v. Poulos, 2007 WL 61884, at

*4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2007) (unpublished decision); and Aboushaban v. Mueller, 2006 WL

3041086, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2006) (unpublished decision)); Opposition at 5 (citing

Quan v. Chertoff, No. C-06-7881-SC (N.D. Cal. June 6, 2007) (unpublished decision); Zhu

v. Chertoff, No. C-06-7642-RMW (N.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2007) (unpublished decision); and

Chen v. Chertoff, No. C-06-7927-RMW (N.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2007) (unpublished decision)).

This Court agrees that federal law establishes a non-discretionary duty for the USCIS

to adjudicate a petition for adjustment of status. 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a). This Court also agrees

that federal law establishes a non-discretionary duty to complete the adjudication of such

petitions “within a reasonable time.” 5 U.S.C. § 555(b). Cf. 8 U.S.C. § 1571 (“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 filing of the application.”). The Court further agrees

that the government’s duty to adjudicate the pending petitions within a reasonable timeframe

is mandatory and non-discretionary, notwithstanding the absence of a statutory timetable. To

hold otherwise would be to sanction the perpetual delay of governmental obligations that are

clearly mandated by law. Accordingly, the Court concludes (1) that Plaintiffs’ claims are

clear and certain; (2) that the official’s duty is nondiscretionary, ministerial, and so plainly

prescribed as to be free from doubt; and (3) that no other adequate remedy is available. 

Singh v. Still, 470 F.Supp.2d at 1067 (quoting Patel v. Reno, 134 F.3d 929, 931 (9th Cir.

1997)). For these reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff has stated a claim for which this

Court can grant mandamus relief, and the government’s motion to dismiss for lack of

jurisdiction is DENIED.

//

//

Case 3:07-cv-00734-CRB Document 16 Filed 07/23/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\CRBALL\2007\0734\order re motion to dismiss.wpd 3

Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment has already been filed. Defendant filed its

opposition on July 11, 2007. The Court orders Plaintiffs to file their reply in support of the

motion not later than August 3, 2007. The hearing on the motion for summary judgment

shall occur on Friday, August 17, at 10:00 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 23, 2007 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-00734-CRB Document 16 Filed 07/23/07 Page 3 of 3