Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01398/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01398-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 465
Nature of Suit: Other Immigration Actions
Cause of Action: 05:0701 Maritime Subsidy Board

---

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHAHID KHAN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JONATHAN SCHARFEN, Acting Director,

United States Citizenship and

Immigration Services,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 08-1398 SC

ORDER DENYING

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO

DISMISS AND GRANTING

PLAINTIFF'S CROSSMOTION FOR LEAVE TO

FILE FIRST AMENDED

COMPLAINT

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss

filed by the defendant Jonathan Scharfen (the "Government"), and

the Cross-Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint

submitted by the plaintiff Shahid Khan ("Plaintiff"). Docket Nos.

12, 16. The Government filed a Reply in support of its Motion. 

Docket No. 19. For the following reasons, Defendant's Motion to

Dismiss is DENIED and Plaintiff's Motion to Amend is GRANTED.

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, a citizen of Pakistan, was initially denied asylum

and withholding of removal by the Board of Immigration Appeals

("BIA"). Plaintiff appealed this denial and the Ninth Circuit

Case 3:08-cv-01398-SC Document 30 Filed 08/12/08 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

reversed and remanded, finding Plaintiff eligible for asylum. See

Khan v. Immigration and Naturalization Serv., No. 99-71504, 2001

WL 599227, at *2 (9th Cir. 2001) (unpublished). On September 24,

2001, the BIA granted Plaintiff asylum. Compl., Docket No. 1, Ex.

A. On January 13, 2003, he applied for adjustment of status with

the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS"). 

Id. Ex. B. This adjustment application then remained pending for

more than four years. 

On April 26, 2007, Plaintiff filed a Complaint for

Declaratory Judgment in this Court seeking an injunction

compelling adjudication of his adjustment application. See

Khan v. Gonzalez, No. 08-1398 SC, Docket No. 1. On March 3, 2008,

USCIS denied Plaintiff's application for adjustment of status and

on March 11, this Court signed a stipulated dismissal of

Plaintiff's claim. Id. Docket No. 17. On March 12, Plaintiff

filed the instant action, alleging that the finding by USCIS

regarding Plaintiff's eligibility to adjust his status was

arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. Compl. ¶ 9. On April

23, the USCIS, sua sponte, reopened the matter of Plaintiff's

adjustment of status. Mot. to Dis. at 3. The reopening of the

adjustment applications of Plaintiff and others occurred in

accordance with a USCIS policy memorandum addressing review of

prior denials of certain cases after December 26, 2007. Id.

Plaintiff is presently awaiting, still, a decision on his

application to adjust his immigration status. 

Case 3:08-cv-01398-SC Document 30 Filed 08/12/08 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

III. DISCUSSION

The Government seeks dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint

pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing

that because there has been no final agency action on Plaintiff's

adjustment application, the Complaint is not ripe for review. 

This argument, however, ignores the Administrative Procedure Act

("APA"), which states that courts "shall compel agency action

unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed." 5 U.S.C. § 706(1). 

This Court has recently issued several orders addressing the APA

in the context of delays in the adjudication of adjustment

applications. See Soneji v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 525 F. Supp.

2d 1151, 1154-56 (N.D. Cal. 2007); Chen v. U.S. Citizenship and

Immigration Serv., No. 07-2462, 2007 WL 4531710, at *1 (N.D. Cal.

December 18, 2007) (adopting the reasoning of Soneji). The

Government's Motion is DENIED.

Plaintiff seeks leave to file a First Amended Complaint. 

Plaintiff notes that he has already filed two separate Complaints

in his efforts to force the Government to adjudicate his

adjustment application. Seeing no reason to force Plaintiff to

refile yet another Complaint, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion

to File an Amended Complaint.

///

///

///

///

///

/// 

Case 3:08-cv-01398-SC Document 30 Filed 08/12/08 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

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Government's Motion to Dismiss

is DENIED and Plaintiff's Motion to File an Amended Complaint is

GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 12, 2008 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-01398-SC Document 30 Filed 08/12/08 Page 4 of 4