Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-07550/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-07550-0/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

Case No. C 06-7550 JF (PVT)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

(JFLC2)

**E-Filed 1/22/07**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

YING WANG,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary of the

Department of Homeland Security, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 06-7550 JF (PVT)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

[re: doc. no. 1]

Plaintiff Ying Wang brings this suit pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), alleging excessive

delay in the processing of her application for naturalization. 

An applicant for citizenship must meet various statutory requirements, including

sufficient periods of residency and physical presence and “good moral character.” 8 U.S.C. §

1427. In determining whether an applicant meets these requirements, the Attorney General or his

designee may conduct both a “personal investigation” and an “examination” of the applicant. 

See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1443(a), 1446(a)-(b). This process includes a criminal background check by the

Federal Bureau of Investigation. Khelifa v. Chertoff, 433 F. Supp. 2d 836, 838-39 (E.D. Mich.

2006). If a decision to grant or deny an application for naturalization is not made “before the end

of the 120-day period after the date on which the examination is conducted,” the applicant may

Case 5:06-cv-07550-JF Document 3 Filed 01/22/07 Page 1 of 3
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

Case No. C 06-7550 JF (PVT)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

(JFLC2)

file suit in the United States district court for the district in which the applicant resides. 8 U.S.C.

§ 1447(b). “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.” Id.

Plaintiff alleges that her examination took place on September 14, 2005 and that a

decision on her application was not made within 120 days thereafter, and in fact has not been

made even though more than a year has passed since the date of the examination. Plaintiff

requests that this Court exercise its authority to adjudicate her application or to remand to

Defendants with instructions to process her application immediately.

The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of Plaintiff’s complaint and this Order on

counsel for Defendants. Defendants are hereby ordered to SHOW CAUSE, in writing and within

sixty (60) days, why Plaintiff’s request should not be granted. Plaintiff may file a response

within twenty (20) days after receipt of Defendants’ filing. The matter thereafter will be taken

under submission without oral argument unless the parties otherwise are notified by the Court.

The order dated December 8, 2006, setting an initial case management conference and

ADR deadlines, is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

DATED: 1/22/07

__________________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-07550-JF Document 3 Filed 01/22/07 Page 2 of 3
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

Case No. C 06-7550 JF (PVT)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

(JFLC2)

Copies of Order served on:

Counsel for Plaintiff:

Stanley Chao

Law Offices of Stanley Chao

28 North First Street, Suite 400

San Jose, Ca 95113

Counsel for Defendants:

Office of the United States Attorney

150 Almaden Blvd., Suite 900

San Jose, CA 95113

Case 5:06-cv-07550-JF Document 3 Filed 01/22/07 Page 3 of 3