Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00165/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00165-0/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

- 1 - 07CV0165 BEN (CAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

QIANG WANG,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07CV0165 BEN (CAB)

ORDER REMANDING

ADJUDICATION OF

NATURALIZATION APPLICATION

v.

ALBERTO GONZALES, Attorney General

of the United States; MICHAEL

CHERTOFF, Secretary of U.S. Department

of Homeland Security; EMILIO

GONZALES, Director of U.S. Citizenship

and Immigration Services; and ROBERT S.

MUELLER; Director of Federal Bureau of

Investigation,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Qiang Wang (“Plaintiff”) filed this action pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) for a

declaratory judgment of naturalization. In addition, Plaintiff requests fees under the Equal Access

to Justice Act. Presently before the Court are defendants Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General of

the United States (“USA”), Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security

(“DHS”), Robert Mueller, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), and Emilio

Gonzalez, Director of United States Citizen and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) (collectively

“Defendants”) who seek a motion to remand this case to USCIS. (Doc. No. 4.) For the reasons

discussed below, the Court declines to adjudicate Plaintiff’s application and REMANDS his

naturalization proceedings to USCIS. 

Case 3:07-cv-00165-BEN-CAB Document 6 Filed 04/30/07 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 - 07CV0165 BEN (CAB)

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is a native and citizen of the Peoples Republic of China and a lawful permanent

resident of the United States. Plaintiff filed an application for naturalization to United States

citizenship on June 27, 2005. USCIS requested the FBI conduct a name check for the Plaintiff on

July 13, 2005. On December 2, 2005, Plaintiff was interviewed by USCIS. Plaintiff’s interview

was conducted prior to waiting for the FBI name check results contrary to the statutory scheme. 

The name check results are still pending to this date. On January 26, 2007, Plaintiff filed this

action pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) seeking a declaratory judgment of naturalization and for fees

under the Equal Access to Justice Act . (Doc. No. 1.) On March 28, 2007, Defendants filed a

motion to remand this matter to USCIS. (Doc. No. 4.) No opposition was filed by the Plaintiff. 

II. DISCUSSION

The FBI and USCIS are charged with investigating and adjudicating naturalization

applications. See 8 U.S.C. § 1446(a). In 1997, Congress mandated that the FBI investigate every

applicant for naturalization and that USCIS await completion of those investigations prior to

rendering a decision with respect to any applicant. See Pub. L. No. 105-119, Title I, Nov. 26,

1997, 111 Stat. 2448. Specifically, beginning in fiscal year 1998 and continuing thereafter, USCIS

is prohibited from using any of the funds appropriated or available to it unless the USCIS has

received confirmation from the FBI that a full criminal background check has been completed. 

See id. In response, USCIS adopted a regulation requiring the initial examination for an

applicant’s naturalization application occur only after USCIS has received a definitive response

from the FBI that a full criminal background check has been completed on that applicant. See 8

C.F.R. 

§ 335.2(b). Under this regulation, the USCIS cannot adjudicate a petitioner’s naturalization

application until the FBI completes its record review. 

Generally, a lawful permanent resident alien is eligible for naturalization as a United States

citizen if he or she (1) satisfies a five-year statutory residency requirement; (2) has resided

continuously in the United States from the date of his or her application to the time of his or her

admission as a citizen; and (3) is of good moral character. See 8 U.S.C. § 1427(a). USCIS must

Case 3:07-cv-00165-BEN-CAB Document 6 Filed 04/30/07 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 - 07CV0165 BEN (CAB)

make a determination on a naturalization application within 120 days after it conducts a

naturalization examination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). If it fails to do so, the applicant may apply to

the federal district court for a hearing on the matter. Id. The district court assumes jurisdiction

over the matter and may either: 1) determine the matter by making a naturalization decision; or 

2) remand the matter, with appropriate instructions, to USCIS. Id. See United States v.

Hovsepian, 359 F.3d 1144, 1160 (9th Cir. 2004). 

By proceeding with Plaintiff’s initial examination before receiving the results of the

required FBI investigations, USCIS prematurely triggered the 120-day decision period for Plaintiff

and others similarly situated. Realizing the dilemma this had caused (and to avoid this problem in

the future), USCIS has since realigned its interview process with the timing dictated by statute --

namely, to await completion of the FBI background investigations before USCIS conducts the

initial interviews of naturalization applicants. Despite this correction, however, a number of

applicants, including Plaintiff, remain among those whose initial examinations occurred prior to

the proper adherence of the statutory scheme. Since Plaintiff was interviewed by USCIS on

December 2, 2005, and 120-days have since elapsed, it is undisputed that this Court has

jurisdiction over this matter. See id. at 1164 (holding Section 1447(b) allows the district court to

exercise jurisdiction over naturalization applications where USCIS fails to act within 120 days if

the applicant properly invokes the court’s authority). 

As discussed above, the Court has two options once jurisdiction is established. The Court

may hold a hearing and decide the matter outright, or remand the matter with appropriate

instructions to USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). Given the practical considerations involved and

the noted absence of any FBI investigative results for the Plaintiff, the Court chooses the second

option. When the delay in a citizenship decision results from the FBI’s investigative process, the

Court finds it inappropriate to make a determination before that information is known unless there

are extreme, abusive, or egregious circumstances, which are clearly not present here. See Khelifa

v. Chertoff, 433 F.Supp 2d 836, 843 (E.D. Mich. 2006) (noting that courts have been unwilling to

conduct their own investigations into an applicant’s criminal background, or to proceed on the

merits without the benefit of the information concerning the applicant’s background or security

Case 3:07-cv-00165-BEN-CAB Document 6 Filed 04/30/07 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 - 07CV0165 BEN (CAB)

risk, where they can instead remand the matter with instructions to USCIS for determination). 

Generally speaking, a court should remand a case to an agency for decision on matters that

are primarily placed in the agency’s hands by statute. See I.N.S. v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16

(2002). In Ventura, the Supreme Court cited a number of considerations in support of this

proposition:

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 that the law provides.

537 U.S. at 17. The executive branch is accorded great deference in immigration matters as

evidenced by the statutory and regulatory schemes established for processing citizenship

applications. Obviously, the federal law enforcement agencies which oversee the investigative

process on behalf of USCIS have a great deal more expertise than the Court in both: (1) identifying

the potentially problematic information uncovered in a background check; and (2) following up

on such information to determine whether it truly reflects legitimate national security or public

safety concerns, or instead is merely a “false positive.” See Khelifa, 433 F.Supp.2d at 844.

Only the FBI and USCIS are in a position to know what resources are available to conduct

the background checks and whether an expedited background check is feasible or efficient in any

particular case. See Shalabi v. Gonzales, 2006 WL 3032413 at *5 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 23, 2006).

USCIS is prohibited by statute from approving Plaintiff’s application for naturalization without the

information processed by the FBI and it lacks the authority to expedite the FBI investigation. The

Court too is faced with the same limitations in granting Plaintiff’s requested relief. Plaintiff’s

delay is a result of the post-1997 Congressional mandate that each applicant for citizenship be

subject to a complete FBI criminal background investigation. See El-Daour v. Chertoff, 417 F.

Supp. 2d 679, 684 (W.D. Pa. 2005). 

For these reasons, the Court declines imposing a definitive deadline for either the

completion of the FBI checks or the naturalization decision given the limitations of the agencies

involved. 

Lastly, while not specifically addressed in Defendants’ motion, Plaintiff also requests fees

Case 3:07-cv-00165-BEN-CAB Document 6 Filed 04/30/07 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 - 07CV0165 BEN (CAB)

pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”). The EAJA provides that prevailing parties

in certain adversarial proceedings against the United States may recover attorney’s fees from the

United States. See 5 U.S.C. § 504; 28 U.S.C. § 2412. Title 5 U.S.C. § 504(a)(1) provides:

An agency that conducts an adversary adjudication shall award, to a prevailing party

other than the United States, fees and other expenses incurred by that party in

connection with that proceeding, unless the adjudicative officer of the agency finds

that the position of the agency was substantially justified or that special circumstances

make an award unjust. Whether or not the position of the agency was substantially

justified shall be determined on the basis of the administrative record, as a whole,

which is made in the adversary adjudication for which fees and other expenses are

sought.

5 U.S.C. § 504(a)(1). Here, Plaintiff would not be entitled to these fees because, at this time,

Plaintiff is not the prevailing party.

Additionally, the fees and expenses allowed under Section 504(a)(1) are generally for

adjudications made under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) that are subject to or

governed by 5 U.S.C. § 554. See e.g, Collord v. U.S. Dept. of Interior, 154 F.3d 933, 936 (9th Cir.

1998). Generally, immigration proceedings are not governed by the APA. See Ardestani v. INS,

502 U.S. 129, 135 (1991). Accordingly, Plaintiff would not be entitled to the fees and costs

arising from Plaintiff's naturalization application. Finally, nothing in 5 U.S.C. § 504, nor any other

provision of the EAJA, provides a basis for this court’s jurisdiction over this action.

Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, this matter is REMANDED to USCIS, with

instructions that USCIS adjudicate Plaintiff’s naturalization without unreasonable delay upon

receiving the results of the pending FBI investigation. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 30, 2007

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00165-BEN-CAB Document 6 Filed 04/30/07 Page 5 of 5