Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-03925/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-03925-4/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 1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73, all parties have expressly

consented that this matter may be heard and finally adjudicated by the undersigned.

*E-filed 3/7/08*

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

HARSHA REDDY, 

Plaintiff,

v.

ROBERT S. MUELLER III, Director, Federal

Bureau of Investigation; et al. 

Defendants.

 /

Case No. C07-03925 HRL

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION

TO REMAND

Re: Docket No. 17

Defendants' motion to remand the case is scheduled for a hearing on March 18, 2007. 1

However, this matter is appropriate for resolution without oral argument and so that hearing is

now VACATED. Civil Local Rule 7-1(b).

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Harsha Reddy has been a lawful permanent resident of the United States since

1980. Quizon Decl. ¶ 12. He applied for naturalization on February 27, 2006 and was

interviewed by the United States Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) on July 11, 2006. 

Id. When he filed his complaint on July 31, 2007, USCIS had still not issued a decision on his

naturalization application. Apparently, Plaintiff's application is ready to be adjudicated except

for his pending background and security check. Id. That security check is waiting on

Case 5:07-cv-03925-HRL Document 22 Filed 03/07/08 Page 1 of 4
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

 The FBI name check is one of several forms of security checks that must be

completed as part of the naturalization application process. Other security checks include:

(1) an FBI fingerprint check for information related to an applicant's criminal history; (2) an

Interagency Border Inspection System name check for information regarding national

security risks; and (3) a Homeland Security record check. See Quizon Decl. ¶ 3; April 26,

2006 USCIS “Fact Sheet: Immigration Security Checks - How and Why the Process Works.”

2

completion of Reddy's Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) "name check." 2

 Shortly after

Plaintiff filed the instant action, USCIS requested that the FBI expedite its completion of

Reddy's name check. Id. Despite that request, it remains pending. Cannon Decl. ¶ 41. 

Defendants now move to remand this matter back to USCIS with instructions to

adjudicate the naturalization application promptly upon receipt of the FBI name check. (Mot.

pg. 7). Plaintiff does not object to the case being remanded, but requests that such an order

direct USCIS to adjudicate the application within ninety days. (Opp. pg. 1-2). 

II. JURISDICTION

If USCIS fails to make a determination on an individual’s application for naturalization

within 120 days after the applicant is examined, that individual may apply to the United States

District Court for a hearing on the matter. 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). Here, over a year passed

between Reddy's interview and his filing of the complaint. Therefore, jurisdiction has been

conferred to this court to decide the matter. 

III. ORDER REMANDING WITH INSTRUCTIONS

When an applicant files such a complaint, the court has the option of either deciding the

matter or remanding it "with appropriate instructions," to USCIS for determination. 8 U.S.C. §

1447(b). Since USCIS processed Plaintiff's application, conducted his interview and

orchestrated his background investigation, we agree with both parties that USCIS is the

government entity best equipped to adjudicate Reddy's application. Accordingly, the motion to

remand is GRANTED as to this aspect. 

However, the "appropriate instruction" determination is a more difficult question.

Congress has made criminal background checks a prerequisite to the adjudication of an

Case 5:07-cv-03925-HRL Document 22 Filed 03/07/08 Page 2 of 4
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 Cf. 8 U.S.C. § 1571(b) (suggesting a 180 day timetable for processing immigration

benefits application) with 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) (120 day processing deadline).

3

application for naturalization. See Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary,

and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998, Pub.L. No. 105-119, Title I, 111 Stat. 2440,

2448 (1997), reprinted in Historical and Statutory Notes following INA § 335, 8 U.S.C. § 1446. 

The evidence submitted by the government indicates that the administrative burden of

processing name checks is considerable. Cannon Decl., ¶¶ 21-23.

 Yet, although this court appreciates the administrative burden faced by defendants, it

does not find that assertions of overwork alone are sufficient to justify substantial delays. See

Yu v. Brown, 36 F. Supp.2d 922, 934 (D.N.M. 1999) ("[D]elays of [a significant] magnitude,

particularly when they occur over uncomplicated matters of great importance to the individuals

involved, may not be justified merely by assertions of overwork.") (citations omitted). There

has been no particularized showing that Reddy's application is especially complex or presents

any national security concerns. 

Furthermore, courts in this district have found that when an application for lawful

permanent residency has been pending for more than two years, such a delay is unreasonable. 

See e.g., Gelfer v. Chertoff, C06-06724 WHA, 2007 WL 902382, *1 (N.D. Cal. 2007). This is

notable because the statute underlying lawful permanent resident status determinations, unlike

the one for naturalization, does not mandate a certain time frame for adjudication.3 It follows

then, that where a naturalization application has been pending for two years (as is the case

here), it is appropriate to remand the case with instructions to adjudicate by a particular

deadline. 

As such, USCIS shall have until June 4, 2008 to adjudicate Reddy's application for

naturalization. By that date, Defendants shall file an affidavit with the court demonstrating

compliance. This case shall remain open pending receipt of that affidavit.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 3/7/08 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:07-cv-03925-HRL Document 22 Filed 03/07/08 Page 3 of 4
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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THIS NOTICE WILL BE SENT TO:

Bernadette Willeke Connolly bwconnolly@aol.com 

Ila Casy Deiss ila.deiss@usdoj.gov, tiffani.chiu@usdoj.gov 

Carole M Mesrobian cmesrobian@mesrolaw.com 

Dated: 3/7/08

 /s/ KRO 

Chambers of Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd

Case 5:07-cv-03925-HRL Document 22 Filed 03/07/08 Page 4 of 4