Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03607/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03607-2/pdf.json

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

---

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

VICTOR VOLOVNIKOV,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,

Defendant. /

No. C-07-03607 EDL

ORDER CONDITIONALLY GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO REMAND

On July 12, 2007, Plaintiff filed a Petition for Hearing Naturalization Application, seeking a

judicial determination of his naturalization application. On November 20, 2007, Defendants filed a

Motion to Dismiss or Remand, seeking an order remanding the case to the USCIS for determination

of the naturalization application. Briefing is complete, and this matter is appropriate for decision

without oral argument. 

Facts

On March 14, 2005, Plaintiff filed his application for naturalization with United States

Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). See Compl. ¶ 9. On August 3, 2005, Defendants

examined Plaintiff on his application in San Francisco. See id. ¶ 10. Plaintiff was told that he

passed the examination, but that a decision could not be made on his application. See id. ¶ 11. 

Plaintiff has made at least two written requests to USCIS regarding the adjudication of his

application. See Compl. ¶ 12; Volovnikov Decl. ¶ 10. He received responses on April 14, 2006,

February 22, 2007 and March 8, 2007 indicating that USCIS was waiting for completion of security

checks. See Volovnikov Decl. ¶ 10. On May 11, 2007, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter to the

District Director indicating that Plaintiff would file this Petition unless his case was adjudicated

within thirty days. See Compl. ¶ 12. Plaintiff received no response to this letter. See id. As of the

Case 3:07-cv-03607-EDL Document 17 Filed 03/06/08 Page 1 of 6
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

signing of Plaintiff’s declaration on January 8, 2008, there had been no indication from USCIS as to

when his application would be adjudicated. See Volovnikov Decl. ¶ 11. On August 7, 2007, USCIS

requested that the name check be expedited. See Ricks Decl. ¶ 13. 

Legal Standard

If USCIS fails to adjudicate a citizenship application within 120 days after the date on which

the examination is conducted under § 1446, here, August 3, 2005, an applicant may obtain a hearing

in district court or the court may order remand. See 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) (“If there is a failure to

make a determination under section 1446 of this title before the end of the 120-day period after the

date on which the examination is conducted under such section, the applicant may apply to the

United States district court for the district in which the applicant resides for a hearing on the matter.

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.”). The examination

referred to in § 1447(b) is the initial interview scheduled under 8 U.S.C. § 1446. See United States

v. Hovsepian, 359 F.3d 1144, 1160 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating that the interview date is the trigger for

the 120-day period under § 1447(b)); see also Khelifa v. Chertoff, 433 F. Supp. 2d 836, 841-42

(E.D. Mich. 2006) (“Accordingly, the Court concurs in the weight of authority holding that the

120-day statutory decisionmaking period commences when an applicant “appear[s] in person before

a Service officer” as provided in the CIS regulation that governs examinations, 8 C.F.R. § 335.2.”). 

On March 1, 2003, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) and USCIS assumed

responsibility for adjudication of naturalization applications. See 6 U.S.C. § 271(b). To obtain

citizenship, an applicant must satisfy several requirements, including the requirement of establishing

that he “has been and still is a person of good moral character, attached to the principles of the

Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United

States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1427(a); 8 C.F.R. § 316.2(a)(7). The applicant must also show that he has

“resided continuously, after being lawfully admitted for permanent residence, within the United

States for at least five years . . . .” 8 U.S.C. § 1427(a). Before granting a naturalization application,

the government must conduct a personal investigation of the applicant consisting of, at a minimum,

Case 3:07-cv-03607-EDL Document 17 Filed 03/06/08 Page 2 of 6
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

3

review of all pertinent records. See 8 U.S.C. § 1446(a); 8 C.F.R. § 335.1. During this process,

USCIS, in conjunction with the FBI, conducts several security and background checks, including a

name check. See Ricks Decl. ¶ 4. Adjudication of the naturalization application must be withheld

pending completion of the necessary background checks:

During fiscal year 1998 and each fiscal year thereafter, none of the funds

appropriated or otherwise made available to the Immigration and Naturalization

Service shall be used to complete adjudication of an application for naturalization

unless the Immigration and Naturalization Service has received confirmation from the

Federal Bureau of Investigation that a full criminal background check has been

completed . . . .

Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations

Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-119, 111 Stat. 2440, 2448-49. 

The name check consists of reviews of FBI investigative records from the FBI’s Central

Records System. The National Name Check Program “has the mission of disseminating information

from the FBI’s Central Records System in response to requests submitted by federal agencies,

congressional committees, the federal judiciary, friendly foreign police and intelligence agencies and

state and local criminal justice agencies. The Central Records System contains the FBI’s

administrative, personnel, and investigative files.” Cannon Decl. ¶ 4. The Central Records System

consists of “administrative, applicant, criminal, personnel, and other files compiled for law

enforcement purposes.” See id. ¶ 5. There are four stages involved in completion of a name check:

batch processing, name searching, file review and dissemination. See id. ¶ 14. This process is

conducted under a first-in, first-out policy. See id. ¶ 18. The name check program has grown from

2.5 million name check requests per year prior to September 11, 2001 to over 3.4 million name

checks processed in fiscal year 2006. See id. ¶ 21. The increase in name check requests is one

factor leading to the delay in processing. See, e.g., id. ¶ 26. 

Discussion

More than 120 days have passed since Plaintiff’s examination on August 3, 2005, so this

Court has jurisdiction. The Court may “either determine the matter or remand the matter with

appropriate instructions, to [CIS] to determine the matter.” 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). 

Defendants argue that the Court should exercise its discretion to remand to the agency with

instructions. See, e.g., Lecky v. Gonzales, 2007 WL 1813644, *1-2 (N.D. Cal. June 22, 2007)

Case 3:07-cv-03607-EDL Document 17 Filed 03/06/08 Page 3 of 6
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

4

(Illston, J.) (“The Court finds it appropriate to remand this action to USCIS because that agency has

considerably more expertise than the Court in adjudicating naturalization petitions.”); Stepchuck v.

Gonzales, 2006 WL 3361776, *5 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 17, 2006) (remanding where USCIS did not act

within 120 days of interview: “ When faced with the situation here, where the background check has

not been completed within 120 days of the examination interview, the majority of courts have

remanded the application to USCIS to complete the background investigation.”); Khelifa, 433 F.

Supp. 2d at 844 (“Moreover, the Court shares the widespread judicial concern and frustration that

agency action on naturalization applications is unduly delayed in too many cases, including this one,

by protracted FBI background checks that take months or even years to complete. Nonetheless,

under the circumstances presented here, the Court deems it more prudent to allow CIS the

opportunity to determine Plaintiff’s entitlement to citizenship in the first instance.”); Shalabi v.

Gonzales, 2006 WL 3032413, *2 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 23, 2006) (remanding for adjudication of

naturalization application: “As discussed above, the executive branch is generally given great

deference in immigration matters. More specifically, a district court, like the USCIS, is not in a

position to decide an application for naturalization until the FBI completes the required criminal

background investigations. A district court is not equipped to conduct such an investigation to

determine if an applicant presents any risk to national security or public safety.”); El-Daour v.

Chertoff, 417 F. Supp. 2d 679, 683-84 (W.D. Penn. 2005) (remanding petition for naturalization

where agency had not acted within 120 days: “Yet the very reason that the CIS did not process

El-Daour’s application within 120 days of his examination prevents me from deciding his

application. The FBI has not yet completed the criminal background check. This is a vital piece of

information. A court is not equipped to conduct such an investigation. I do not have the resources at

my disposal to determine whether El-Daour presents a risk to national security or to public safety.”).

 By contrast, Plaintiff argues that the Court should hold a hearing to examine the

government’s classified information and grant the plaintiff’s naturalization application. See

Astafieva v. Gonzales, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28993 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2. 2007); Lifshaz v. Gonzales,

2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28946 (W.D. Wash. 2007) (stating that: “. . . the Court is not equipped to

conduct the kind of investigation required to determine whether an applicant presents a risk to

Case 3:07-cv-03607-EDL Document 17 Filed 03/06/08 Page 4 of 6
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

5

national security or public safety. [citation omitted]. Nevertheless, the Court is disturbed by the

possibility that a determination on Mr. Lifshaz’s naturalization application will be endlessly delayed.

Mr. Lifshaz is “understandably anxious to complete the naturalization process so he can fully enjoy

the benefits of United States citizenship.” [citation omitted]. Considering both the Government’s

interest in public safety and national security and Mr. Lifshaz’s individual interest in having his

naturalization application adjudicated, the Court concludes that it is appropriate to hold an

evidentiary hearing on whether Mr. Lifshaz should be naturalized. Defendants do not even attempt

to distinguish this case, they just point to the longer line of cases ordering remand.”). 

Defendants have provided no explanation, aside from the general backlog of name check

requests with the FBI, as to why Plaintiff’s application in particular has not been adjudicated. On

this record, there does not appear to be any reason why Plaintiff’s application is more difficult to

process than any other application. However, while the Court is sympathetic to the fact that

resolution of Plaintiff’s application has been inexplicably delayed, the Court does not have particular

expertise in conducting background checks or adjudicating naturalization applications. It would be

preferable for the agencies promptly to carry out their responsibilities to identify problematic

information, if any, about the applicant and determine whether the information reflects national

security concerns. See Khelifa, 433 F. Supp. 2d at 844. 

Accordingly, the Court conditionally remands this matter to the USCIS for a prompt

adjudication of Plaintiff’s naturalization application. The Court reserves jurisdiction and will

conduct a status conference on June 3, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. if USCIS still has not completed its

adjudication of Plaintiff’s naturalization application. The parties shall file a joint status conference

statement no later than May 27, 2008. 

Dismissal of FBI Director Mueller and Attorney General Mukasay

Defendants seek to dismiss Defendants Mukasey and Mueller, arguing that DHS is the

agency responsible for adjudicating naturalization applications, so the Attorney General and the FBI

Director are not proper Defendants. Since March 1, 2003, the Department of Homeland Security has

been the agency responsible for implementing the Immigration and Nationality Act. 6 U.S.C. §§

271(b)(5), 557. Thus, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is not a proper defendant

Case 3:07-cv-03607-EDL Document 17 Filed 03/06/08 Page 5 of 6
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

6

in this case. See Konchitsky v. Chertoff, 2007 WL 2070325, *6-7 (N.D. Cal. July 13, 2007)

(granting motion to dismiss Director Mueller: “The court concludes that, while this court has

jurisdiction over USCIS with regard to Konchitsky’s I-485 application, there is no similar basis for

this court to mandate action by the FBI.”); but see Kaplan v. Chertoff, 481 F. Supp. 2d 370, 400-01

(E.D. Pa. 2007) (finding that the FBI has an implicit mandatory duty where “Congress has

conditioned CIS’s mandatory action on the FBI’s completion of background checks, and where

applicants must pay the FBI, through CIS, to complete the background checks . . . .”). Similarly,

Attorney General Mukasey is not a proper defendant. See Astafieva, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28993,

* 4 (dismissing FBI Director and Attorney General as Defendants). 

Plaintiff argues that Konchitsky is factually distinguishable because it was a mandamus

action. However, just as the Konchitsky court dismissed Director Mueller on the grounds that there

was no basis for the court to mandate action by the FBI to adjust the plaintiff’s status, the statutes

governing adjudication of naturalization applications do not give authority to the FBI or the

Attorney General to act on those applications. Plaintiff also argues that because § 271(a)(5) permits

USCIS to implement initiatives aimed at backlog reduction, accountability should be increased by

allowing his case to proceed against Director Mueller and Attorney General Mukasey. Section

271(a)(5), however, addresses elimination of backlog through processing of immigration benefit

applications, which is not at issue here. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss Defendants

Mueller and Mukasey is granted. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 6, 2008 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-03607-EDL Document 17 Filed 03/06/08 Page 6 of 6