Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00152/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00152-0/pdf.json

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

---

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 07cv152

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JIN SUN and RUI JUA,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 07cv152 BTM (BLM)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART MOTION TO

DISMISS [Doc. #4]

vs.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary,

Department of Homeland Security;

EMILIO T. GONZALEZ, Director, United

States Citizenship and Immigration

Services; PAUL M. PIERRE, District

Director, San Diego District, United

States Citizenship and Immigration

Services; ALBERTO GONZALES,

Attorney General of the United States;

ROBERT S. MUELLER III, Director,

Federal Bureau of Investigation,

Defendants.

INTRODUCTION

Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint on the grounds that this Court lacks

subject matter jurisdiction and that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under the

Administrative Procedure Act or the Mandamus Act. Defendants argue that this Court has

no jurisdiction over the issue and that the remedy Plaintiffs seek is unavailable as a matter

of law. For the reasons discussed below, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED IN PART as to

of Rui Jua, and DENIED IN PART as to Jin Sun. 

Case 3:07-cv-00152-BTM-AJB Document 9 Filed 08/27/07 Page 1 of 5
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 07cv152

BACKGROUND

On March 17, 2005, Jin Sun, a beneficiary of an employment-based visa, filed an

application for adjustment of status to that of Lawful Permanent Resident (I - 485) with the

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS). CIS has requested and is

awaiting the results of an FBI name check investigation. CIS has refused to schedule an

examination interview or to further adjudicate Plaintiff Jin Sun’s application until results from

the FBI investigation are received.

On June 15, 2005, Rui Jua filed an application for adjustment of status to that of

Lawful Permanent Resident as a derivative beneficiary of her spouse Jin Sun under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1153(d). The FBI completed and returned the results of a name check investigation

regarding Rui Jua shortly after her application date. However, CIS has refused to further

adjudicate her application before completing the adjudication process regarding the

application of her spouse.

Plaintiffs jointly commenced this lawsuit on February 13, 2007.

DISCUSSION

I. JURISDICTION

Applications for adjustment of status are governed by the Immigration and Nationality

Act, which provides: “The status of an alien . . . may be adjusted by the Attorney General,

in his discretion and under such regulations as he may prescribe, to that of an alien lawfully

admitted for permanent residence . . . .” 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) (emphasis added).

Plaintiffs assert that this Court has jurisdiction to review the determination of their

adjustment applications under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 et

seq.; the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361; and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C.

§ 2201 et seq.. The APA grants entitlement to judicial review to anyone “adversely affected

or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute.” 5 U.S.C. § 702.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, a district court has jurisdiction to conduct such a review. A court

finding jurisdiction to review agency action under the APA is granted the power to “compel

Case 3:07-cv-00152-BTM-AJB Document 9 Filed 08/27/07 Page 2 of 5
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 07cv152

agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(1); see also 5

U.S.C. § 555(b) (“With due regard for the convenience and necessity of the parties or their

representatives and within a reasonable time, each agency shall proceed to conclude a

matter presented to it.”) (emphasis added). Jurisdiction under the APA is complemented by

28 U.S.C. § 1361, the Mandamus Act, which provides: “The district courts shall have original

jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the

United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.”

However, notwithstanding any other provision of law, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)

specifically eliminates from the court’s jurisdiction review of any “decision or action of the

Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority for which is specified

under this title to be in the discretion of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland

Security . . . .” Defendants argue that CIS adjudication of applications for adjustment of

status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255, and specifically the pace of such adjudication, is discretionary

in nature. They argue, therefore, that the Court is expressly precluded from reviewing this

procedure. The Court disagrees. The Court finds that, though the decision to grant or deny

an adjustment of status as described under 8 U.S.C. § 1255 is discretionary, the obligation

to adjudicate an application for such, in accordance with the “reasonable time” parameters

of 5 U.S.C. § 555(b), is non-discretionary in nature. See Yu v. Brown, 36 F. Supp. 2d 922,

929 (D.N.M. 1999); He v. Chertoff, No. 06cv2608 IEG (NLS), slip op. at 7-9 (S.D. Cal. March

8, 2007); Quan v. Chertoff, No. SC 06-7881, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44081, at *6 (N.D. Cal.

June 7, 2007).

In consideration of the foregoing, the Court finds jurisdiction to review the Plaintiffs’

Complaint. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is denied.

II. RUI JUA

Plaintiff Rui Jua seeks relief in the form of an order compelling CIS to complete the

adjudication process regarding her application. As a derivative beneficiary, she has applied

for change of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1153(d), which grants a spouse “entitle[ment] to the

Case 3:07-cv-00152-BTM-AJB Document 9 Filed 08/27/07 Page 3 of 5
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 07cv152

same status, and the same order of consideration provided in the respective subsection, if

accompanying or following to join, the spouse . . . .” Because her spouse, Jin Sun, has not

yet received Lawful Permanent Resident status, she remains unentitled to receive such

status herself. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Complaint as to Rui Jua for

failure to state a claim is GRANTED. Plaintiff Rui Jua’s claims are dismissed without

prejudice.

III. JIN SUN

Plaintiff Jin Sun, as an applicant for change of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255, is entitled

to adjudication of his application “within a reasonable time.” 5 U.S.C. § 555(b). His

application has been pending the completion of an FBI background investigation for more

than two years. He seeks mandamus relief compelling CIS and the FBI to process his case

to conclusion.

Defendants cite 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(18) as a discretionary basis for their delay of

adjudication. “That subsection, while it allows USCIS to withhold adjudication of an

application, establishes a specific protocol for such delays where first the district director,

then the regional commissioner, and finally the Associate Commissioners for Examinations

and Enforcement must explicitly determine at six month intervals that additional delay is

required.” Cao v. Upchurch, No. 07-1232, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51477, at *15 (E.D. Penn.

July 16, 2007). The court in Cao goes further to explain that, before withholding adjudication,

the district director must determine that “the disclosure of information to the applicant or

petitioner . . . would prejudice the ongoing investigation.” Id. (quoting 8 C.F.R. §

103.2(b)(18)).

Just as in Cao, in the present case, “[d]efendants make no claim that this procedure

has been followed or that disclosure of information would prejudice the investigation.” Id.

This Court, following the reasoning of Cao, finds that, “[i]n the absence of compliance with

the stated procedure, § 103.2(b)(18) does not give defendants discretion to delay resolution

of plaintiffs’ applications.” Id. Thus, the Court cannot find that the delay in processing Jin

Case 3:07-cv-00152-BTM-AJB Document 9 Filed 08/27/07 Page 4 of 5
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

5 07cv152

Sun’s application has been reasonable on the record before it. Additionally, the Government

has not made any challenge to Plaintiff’s claim regarding the FBI. Therefore, the Court

DENIES Defendants’ 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss as to Plaintiff Jin Sun.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN

PART the motion to dismiss. The motion is GRANTED as to the claims of Plaintiff Rui Jua,

and DENIED as to the claims of Plaintiff Jin Sun. Defendants are ordered to respond to

Plaintiff’s Complaint within 20 days.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 27, 2007

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00152-BTM-AJB Document 9 Filed 08/27/07 Page 5 of 5