Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-07838/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-07838-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 8:1446 Petition for Naturalization Hearing

---

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

Case No. C 06-7838 JF (RS)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

(JFLC2)

**E-Filed 1/22/07**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

YANZHENG XU,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

ALBERTO GONZALES, United States Attorney

General, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 06-7838 JF (RS)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

[re: doc. no. 1]

Plaintiff Yanzheng Xu brings this suit pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), alleging excessive

delay in the processing of her application for naturalization. 

An applicant for citizenship must meet various statutory requirements, including

sufficient periods of residency and physical presence and “good moral character.” 8 U.S.C. §

1427. In determining whether an applicant meets these requirements, the Attorney General or his

designee may conduct both a “personal investigation” and an “examination” of the applicant. 

See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1443(a), 1446(a)-(b). This process includes a criminal background check by the

Federal Bureau of Investigation. Khelifa v. Chertoff, 433 F. Supp. 2d 836, 838-39 (E.D. Mich.

2006). If a decision to grant or deny an application for naturalization is not made “before the end

of the 120-day period after the date on which the examination is conducted,” the applicant may

Case 5:06-cv-07838-JF Document 4 Filed 01/22/07 Page 1 of 3
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

Case No. C 06-7838 JF (RS)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

(JFLC2)

file suit in the United States district court for the district in which the applicant resides. 8 U.S.C.

§ 1447(b). “Such court has jurisdiction over the matter and may either determine the matter or

remand the matter, with appropriate instructions, to the Service to determine the matter.” Id.

Plaintiff alleges that her examination took place on April 12, 2006 and that a decision on

her application was not made within 120 days thereafter, and in fact has not been made even

though nine months have passed since the date of the examination. Plaintiff requests that this

Court exercise its authority to adjudicate her application or to remand to Defendants with

instructions to process her application immediately.

The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of Plaintiff’s complaint and this Order on

counsel for Defendants. Defendants are hereby ordered to SHOW CAUSE, in writing and within

sixty (60) days, why Plaintiff’s request should not be granted. Plaintiff may file a response

within twenty (20) days after receipt of Defendants’ filing. The matter thereafter will be taken

under submission without oral argument unless the parties otherwise are notified by the Court.

The order dated December 21, 2006, setting an initial case management conference and

ADR deadlines is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

DATED: 1/22/07

__________________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-07838-JF Document 4 Filed 01/22/07 Page 2 of 3
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

Case No. C 06-7838 JF (RS)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

(JFLC2)

Copies of Order served on:

Counsel for Plaintiff:

Justin Fok jfok@jclawoffice.com 

Counsel for Respondents:

Office of the United States Attorney

150 Almaden Blvd., Suite 900

San Jose, CA 95113

Case 5:06-cv-07838-JF Document 4 Filed 01/22/07 Page 3 of 3