Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02732/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02732-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

---

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 - 06CV2732

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MUNDHER ALYAS GHAZAL,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06CV2732-LAB (NLS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

REMAND AND DISMISSING

COMPLAINT

[Dkt No. 8]

vs.

ALBERTO GONZALES, Attorney

General of the United States; MICHAEL

CHERTOFF, Secretary of the

Department of Homeland Security;

PAUL M. PIERRE, District Director for

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration

Services, and San Diego District Office;

and U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND

IMMIGRATION SERVICES,

Defendants.

This matter is before the court on Defendants' Memorandum Of Law And Motion To

Remand ("Motion") plaintiff Mundher Alyas Ghazal's ("Ghazal") Complaint For Writ In The

Nature Of Mandamus To Compel Administrative Action ("Complaint") seeking an Order to

compel Defendants to forthwith adjudicate his Application For Naturalization. Ghazal filed

a Reply. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), the court finds the issues presented

appropriate for decision on the papers and without oral argument. For the reasons

discussed below, the Motion is GRANTED and the Complaint is DISMISSED.

Ghazal, a lawful permanent resident in the United States since 1994, alleges he filed

his Application For Naturalization on February 14, 2003 with the U.S. Citizenship and

Case 3:06-cv-02732-LAB-NLS Document 13 Filed 06/14/07 Page 1 of 6
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

 Defendants assert, if Ghazal contends his Complaint does not arise under 8 U.S.C. §

1447(b) but rather, as originally pled, the court should dismiss the Complaint for lack of jurisdiction

or for failure to state a claim under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b). Defendants also invoke Rule 12(b)(6) and

challenge with specificity this court's jurisdiction under any of the independent jurisdictional bases

Ghazal recited in his Complaint as well as the merits of any due process constitutional rights claim,

urging the Complaint be dismissed. Mot. pp. 8-14. Alternatively, Defendants request the matter be

remanded to the USCIS for adjudication in the first instance. Mot. 2:1712-26.

2

 Section 1447(b) (emphasis added) sets a 120-day period from the date of a naturalization

examination within which the agency must decide a naturalization application, and empowers the

district court to "either determine the matter or remand the matter, with appropriate instructions, to

the Service to determine the matter."

- 2 - 06CV2732

Immigration Services ("USCIS"). He represents, and the government confirms, he appeared

for an examination pursuant to the Application on December 12, 2003. He contends he

provided all the evidence necessary for the agency to decide his Application. He represents

his numerous written and in-person inquiries thereafter did not spur agency action, and as

of the December 18, 2006 federal Complaint filing date, the Application remained pending.

Defendants represent the results of Ghazal's law enforcement background investigation

were still pending as of the March 2, 2007 filing date of their Motion. Mot. 3:15-16.

Although his Complaint relies on various jurisdictional grounds (28 U.S.C. §§ 1331

(federal question), 1361 (the Mandamus Act), 2201 (Declaratory Judgments)) and the

Administrative Procedures Act,1 the court construed Ghazal's Complaint as a request for

proceeding under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b)2 and set a briefing schedule. His Reply to Defendants'

Motion adopts that ground in addition to revisiting his original jurisdictional grounds in

support of his request for this court's intervention, but he seeks the same result under all

those theories:

Based on the foregoing, if the court proceeds under 8 U.S.C.

section 1447(b), Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court

impose a deadline for Defendants to complete Plaintiff's

background check within 60 days or less. If the Court elects to

remand Plaintiff's application to the USCIS for adjudication,

Plaintiff requests that the remand include instructions for the

USCIS to complete adjudication of the application within 90

days or less.

Reply 18:26-19:6. 

/ / /

Case 3:06-cv-02732-LAB-NLS Document 13 Filed 06/14/07 Page 2 of 6
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 - 06CV2732

The court acknowledges both sides appear to expect and desire a remand for agency

action. The difference arises from Ghazal's request for a finite time frame within which the

government must act definitively on his Application. The government traces in detail the

investigation process prerequisite to any final agency decision on a naturalization

application, and the imperative that naturalization applications not be adjudicated on the

basis of incomplete information but rather await the development of a complete record

through the background check processes. 

The FBI and CIS are charged respectively with investigating and adjudicating

naturalization applications. 8 U.S.C. § 1446(a). Defendants provide the declaration of

Victoria Porto, a CIS employee whose duty, among others, is to research and monitor CIS

case records. Mot. Ex. B. She substantiates the chronology of events in the processing of

Ghazal's Application: Application received February 18, 2003; mandatory FBI name check

initiated on March 3, 2003; request for FBI background law enforcement check initiated on

August 18, 2003; interview conducted December 12, 2003; results of Ghazal's April 2, 2003

and September 28, 2004 fingerprint checks received on September 29, 2004. Porto Decl.

¶¶ 8-10, 12 ("The background investigation into Ghazal's naturalization application is ongoing"). Ms. Porto avers: 

Since the terrorist attacks on the United States of

September 11, 2001, the need to conduct more rigorous and

thorough background checks of who are seeking immigration

status, or applying for immigration benefits in the United States,

has required procedures that sometime[s] result in individuals

not receiving their requested documentation, or immigration

benefits, as quickly as in the past. However, public safety

requires the USCIS to make certain that the checks have been

done before it adjudicates any application or petition, and before

it issues any immigration status documents, to such persons. 

Porto Decl. ¶ 10. 

Congress mandated in 1997 that the FBI investigate every applicant for naturalization

and that CIS await completion of those investigations before rendering a decision with

respect to any applicant. See Pub. L. No. 105-119, Title I, Nov. 26, 1997, 111 Stat. 2448.

In particular, beginning in fiscal year 1998 and thereafter, the then Immigration and

Case 3:06-cv-02732-LAB-NLS Document 13 Filed 06/14/07 Page 3 of 6
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

 "A definitive response that a full criminal background check on an applicant has been

completed includes [but is not necessarily limited to]: (1) Confirmation from the Federal Bureau of

Investigation that an applicant does not have an administrative or criminal record; (2) Confirmation

from the Federal Bureau of Investigation that an applicant has an administrative or criminal record;

or (3) Confirmation from the Federal Bureau of Investigation that two properly prepared fingerprint

cards (Form FC-258) have been determined unclassifiable for purpose of conducting a criminal

background check and have been rejected." 8 C.F.R. § 335.2(b) (emphasis added). 

- 4 - 06CV2732

Naturalization Service ("INS") (now CIS) is prohibited from using any of the funds

appropriated or available to it "unless the [CIS] has received confirmation from the (FBI) that

a full criminal background check has been completed . . . ." 3 Id. Pursuant to that provision,

the INS amended 8 C.F.R. § 335.2 to reflect the need to delay conducting an applicant's

initial citizenship interview until after the FBI completes its investigations. The government

respondents here, and in a number of similar cases before this and other district courts,

acknowledge: 

Until recently, many CIS offices, including the San Diego

office, had acted contrary to the regulation by conducting an

initial interview of the applicant to conduct the history and

English examinations before awaiting the results of the FBI

investigations. Depending upon the results of the FBI

investigation,CIS would re-interview the naturalization applicant.

However, FBI investigations have taken much longer over the

past few years, so the adjudications of naturalization

applications have been increasingly delayed. Accordingly,

applicants have turned to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). 

Mot. 4:22-27; see Khelifa v. Chertoff, 433 F.Supp.2d 836, 841-42 (E.D.Mich. 2006); Shalabi

v. Gonzales, 2006 WL 3032413 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 23, 2006); Stepchuk v. Gonzales, 2006 WL

3361776 *2 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 17, 2006). To avoid the problem in future, apparently CIS

has now conformed its interview process to the regulatory timing mandate by awaiting

completion of the FBI background investigations -- over the timing of which CIS has no

control -- before conducting initial interviews of naturalization applicants. A number of

applicants, including Ghazal, remain among those whose initial examinations occurred

before the procedure to await FBI investigation results was strictly applied. 

The district court technically can exercise jurisdiction over such cases where more

than 120 days have passed since the CIS' initial examination of the applicant but where the

processing of the citizenship application is stalled pending the results of the FBI's

Case 3:06-cv-02732-LAB-NLS Document 13 Filed 06/14/07 Page 4 of 6
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 - 06CV2732

investigations. See United States v. Hovsepian, 359 F.3d 1144, 1164 (9th Cir. 2004)

(holding "Section 1447(b) allows the district court to obtain exclusive jurisdiction over those

naturalization applications on which the INS fails to act within 120 days if the applicant

properly invokes the court's authority"). Once jurisdiction is established, 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b)

gives the court two options: hold a hearing and decide the matter, or remand the matter with

appropriate instructions to the CIS for determination. Prudentially and practically, this court

is persuaded to exercise its remand option when an applicant's background information is

incomplete.

"Generally speaking, a court . . . should remand a case to an agency for decision of

a matter that statutes place primarily in agency hands." INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16

(2002). In immigration matters, the executive branch is accorded great deference, as

evidenced by the statutory and regulatory schemes established for processing citizenship

applications. Neither the CIS nor the district court is sufficiently informed to decide an

application until the FBI completes the required criminal background check to determine

whether an applicant presents any national security or public safety risk, nor are they

equipped to conduct such investigations themselves. See El-Daour v. Chertoff, 417

F.Supp.2d 679, 684 (W.D.Pa. 2005); Shalabi, 2006 WL 3032413 at *4. When the delay in

the decision results from the FBI's investigative process, this court finds it is inappropriate

to make a citizenship determination before that information is known, absent abusive or

egregious circumstances not present on this record. See Khelifa, 433 F.Supp.2d at 843

("[T]he courts have been unwilling to pursue either of these two courses [i.e., either to

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

merits of the application without the benefit of information concerning the applicants'

backgrounds or security risks] where they could instead remand with instructions for the CIS

to promptly decide the applications"). To do otherwise, "we would be improvidently

bypassing the agency's expertise in immigration matters committed in the first instance to

the agency." Lopez v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 799, 807 (9th Cir. 2004). 

/ / /

Case 3:06-cv-02732-LAB-NLS Document 13 Filed 06/14/07 Page 5 of 6
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 - 06CV2732

Moreover, as "only the FBI and the CIS 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 a particular case (Shalabi, 2006 WL 3032413 at *5), the court

declines to impose particular deadlines for completion of the FBI checks or the naturalization

decision. The court notes this decision does not deprive Ghazal of judicial review, because

if his application is ultimately administratively denied, he may return to court for a de novo

review. See 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c). The court would, at that time, have the benefit of a

complete administrative record. 

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Defendants' Motion To Remand is GRANTED.

2. This matter is REMANDED to CIS, with instructions that CIS make a

determination as expeditiously as possible after the completion of Ghazal's security and

background investigation.

3. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 14, 2007

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02732-LAB-NLS Document 13 Filed 06/14/07 Page 6 of 6