Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03455/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03455-16/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMIR SAYED, BIREN SHAH, and MIEKE

VANDEWALLE-CALLINAN,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, United States Secretary

of Homeland Security; ROBERT S. MUELLER

III, Director of the Federal Bureau of

Investigation; MICHAEL MUKASEY, Attorney

General of the United States; JONATHAN

SCHARFEN, Acting Director, United States

Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of

Citizenship and Immigration Services; DAVID

STILL, District Director, United States

Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of

Citizenship and Immigration Services, San

Francisco District, 

Defendants. /

No. C 07-03455 WHA

ORDER: (1) GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST

FOR VOLUNTARY

DISMISSAL; (2) GRANTING

IN PART DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO REMAND;

AND (3) GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO

DISMISS SECOND AND

THIRD CLAIMS AS MOOT

INTRODUCTION

In this action concerning naturalization petitions, federal defendants move to dismiss

in part, remand in part, and strike in part plaintiff’s third amended complaint. 

Plaintiffs Biren Shah, Amir Sayed, and Mieke Vandewalle-Callinan have faced long delays

in the adjudication of their naturalization applications by United States Citizenship and

Immigration Services. Plaintiffs request de novo judicial review of their naturalization

applications pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1447(b). Plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief under the

Case 3:07-cv-03455-WHA Document 97 Filed 07/18/08 Page 1 of 7
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

Administrative Procedures Act and mandamus. For the reasons stated below, plaintiff’s request

to voluntarily dismiss plaintiff Shah is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ request to dismiss the APA and

mandamus claims as moot is also GRANTED. Defendants’ motion to remand is GRANTED IN

PART. This matter is hereby remanded to CIS with an instruction to adjudicate the

naturalization applications of plaintiffs Sayed and Vandewalle-Callinan by a target date of

AUGUST 1, 2008, with a hard deadline of AUGUST 18, 2008. 

STATEMENT

This order must accept as true all well-pled allegations of fact. Plaintiffs Amir Sayed,

Biren Shah, and Mieke Vandewalle-Callinan are long-time, lawful residents of the

United States. Each is in the process of applying for naturalization and claims to meet all

statutory requirements. Each filed their application in 2004. None of their applications,

however, has been adjudicated. Allegedly, this is because they are among tens of thousands of

applicants suffering from systemic delays in the naturalization process caused by the policies,

practices, and procedures instituted by defendants Michael Chertoff, Robert S. Mueller III,

Michael Mukasey, Jonathan Scharfen, and David Still. 

Plaintiffs allege that these delays result from a requirement known as an FBI

“name check.” The name check runs an applicant’s name against an FBI database containing

all the names of persons who are or were the subjects of FBI investigations. According to

plaintiffs, this database is wildly overinclusive. It contains not only the names of criminals,

suspects, and targets of investigations, but also countless innocent persons whose names are

merely mentioned in FBI files, such as crime victims and witnesses. Plaintiffs allege that CIS

will not process an application for naturalization unless the name check is completed. 

Plaintiffs allege that they have completed their naturalization interviews with CIS and

that CIS failed to give them a decision within 120 days of the date of the interview. Because of

the name-check requirement, adjudication of plaintiffs’ applications has been delayed for over

four years. Plaintiffs are allegedly prejudiced because of the uncertainty associated with the

process and their inability to participate fully as United States citizens. 

Case 3:07-cv-03455-WHA Document 97 Filed 07/18/08 Page 2 of 7
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

This action was originally filed on July 2, 2007. Plaintiffs filed a first amended

complaint on August 10, 2007. Plaintiffs sought de novo judicial determination of their

individual applications for naturalization pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1447(b), as well as declaratory

and injunctive relief on a class-wide basis for those who had also satisfied the statutory

requirements and were suffering similar delays. The class claims for declaratory and injunctive

relief were: (i) unreasonable delay in violation of the APA; (ii) failure to follow

notice-and-comment procedures in violation of the APA; and (iii) violations of the Fifth

Amendment’s due process clause. 

An order dated October 15, 2007, granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion

to dismiss. The order held that this Court had jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ individual claims

under 8 U.S.C. 1447(b) because more than 120 days had passed since plaintiffs’ naturalization

interviews, thus rejecting defendants’ argument that the 120-day clock did not start to run until

after the name check was completed. The order denied defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack

of jurisdiction over the individual 8 U.S.C. 1447(b) claims and likewise declined to remand the

applications back to CIS without instructions. The order granted defendants’ motion to dismiss

the three class claims filed under the APA and due process clause. The order, however, denied

defendants’ motion to strike plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive relief, finding that such a ruling

would be inappropriate at that time. 

On November 15, 2007, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. They added

new plaintiffs but did not amend the class claims dismissed by the October 15 order. 

Plaintiffs moved for leave to file a third amended complaint on March 13, 2008. 

Plaintiffs sought to add the three plaintiffs involved in the instant matter and to reintroduce

four plaintiffs “inadvertently omitted” from the second amended complaint whose individual

8 U.S.C. 1447(b) claims had been dismissed pursuant to stipulation. Plaintiffs simultaneously

moved for class certification and for entry of final judgment under FRCP 54(b) with respect to

the APA and due process claims dismissed by the October 15 order. 

An order dated April 25, 2008, (i) granted plaintiffs leave to add the three new plaintiffs

but not to reintroduce the four previously-dismissed plaintiffs; (ii) denied plaintiffs’ motion for

Case 3:07-cv-03455-WHA Document 97 Filed 07/18/08 Page 3 of 7
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

class certification; and (iii) granted plaintiffs’ motion for entry of partial judgment. 

Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on May 15. The complaint contained three claims. 

First, plaintiffs sought de novo judicial determination of their individual applications for

naturalization pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1447(b). Second, plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, alleging

unreasonable delay in violation of the APA. This claim was alleged against defendants

Mukasey and Mueller for failure to complete the name checks within a reasonable time period. 

Lastly, plaintiffs filed a claim for a writ of mandamus compelling Mukasey and Mueller to

timely complete the name checks as required by CIS. 

On May 30, 2008, defendants filed a motion to dismiss in part, remand in part, and

strike in part plaintiff’s third amended complaint. Specifically, defendants sought to: 

(i) dismiss plaintiff Shah from the first claim pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1); (ii) remand the

naturalization applications of plaintiffs Sayed and Vandewalle-Callinan to CIS pursuant to

8 U.S.C. 1447(b); and (iii) strike the second and third claims under FRCP 12(f). 

ANALYSIS

1. MOTION TO DISMISS IN PART.

Defendants argue that the first claim should be dismissed as to plaintiff Shah under

FRCP 12(b)(1). According to defendants, this claim is moot because CIS adjudicated Shah’s

naturalization application, thereby granting him the relief he sought. Shah requests that the

claim be voluntarily dismissed under FRCP 41(a)(2). Dismissal is necessary for Shah to take

his oath of citizenship, which is scheduled for July 24, 2008. See United States v. Hovsepian,

359 F.3d 1141, 1151 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc). Plaintiffs’ request for voluntary dismissal is

hereby GRANTED.

2. MOTION TO REMAND IN PART.

Defendants request that the claims of plaintiffs Sayed and Vandewalle-Callinan seeking

relief pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1447(b) be remanded to CIS. Section 1447(b) provides that if CIS

has not adjudicated a naturalization application within 120 days of examining the applicant, the

applicant may apply to the district court for the district in which the applicant resides for a

hearing on the matter. The district court “has jurisdiction over the matter and may either

Case 3:07-cv-03455-WHA Document 97 Filed 07/18/08 Page 4 of 7
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

*

 Moreover, this Court is currently in the midst of a four-week patent trial that would further hinder its

ability to swiftly adjudicate this matter. This order believes that the interests of both parties will best be served

by a remand to CIS.

5

determine the matter or remand the matter, with appropriate instructions, to [CIS] to determine

the matter.” 

The FBI has completed background checks for both plaintiffs and both plaintiffs have

been interviewed. CIS has received all requested information and is now prepared to adjudicate

the naturalization applications of both plaintiffs (Second Ricks Decl. ¶¶ 3–4). The parties have

attempted, but failed, to reach a stipulation in which plaintiffs would agree to voluntary

dismissal contingent on the granting of plaintiff’s naturalization applications within thirty days

(Mass Decl. ¶¶ 5–7). 

In their motion, defendants ask that this matter be remanded to CIS without instructions. 

They argue that “[n]o instructions are necessary where [CIS] is prepared to adjudicate the

applications upon remand, and an instruction requiring that [CIS] grant the applications would

be improper” (Reply Br. 9). Defendants cite no authority demonstrating the propriety of

remanding without instructions. Plaintiffs oppose defendants’ motion. They request that the

Court exercise de novo review of their petitions or, in the alternative, remand the matter to CIS

with instructions to grant naturalization immediately. 

While this order is sympathetic to the long delays plaintiffs have faced, it is not clear

that they will obtain a more expeditious result from this Court. Given that plaintiffs’

administrative record has not yet been filed with the Court, and the Court would likely have to

conduct a de novo hearing following receipt of the record and any discovery by the parties,

this order concludes that CIS is in the best position to expeditiously determine this matter. 

See Huynh v. Mukasey, 2008 WL 1338738, *3 (W.D. Wash. 2008); See also Karsch v. Chertoff,

2007 WL 3228104, *1 (W.D. Wash. 2007) (stating that in order to retain jurisdiction and

adjudicate the plaintiff’s naturalization application, the court would have to conduct a de novo

hearing following discovery by the parties).*

 This order agrees with plaintiffs, however, that a remand to CIS without instructions

would be inappropriate. That CIS is prepared to adjudicate plaintiffs’ naturalization

Case 3:07-cv-03455-WHA Document 97 Filed 07/18/08 Page 5 of 7
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

6

applications does not provide a basis for remanding without instructions. See, e.g., Huynh,

2008 WL 1338738, at *3 (remanding to CIS with an instruction to adjudicate a plaintiff’s

naturalization application within ten business days where CIS was prepared to adjudicate the

application). As such, the matter is hereby remanded to CIS with an instruction to adjudicate

the naturalization applications of plaintiffs Sayed and Vandewalle-Callinan by a target date of

August 1, 2008, and in any event no later than August 18, 2008. Once CIS has adjudicated

the naturalization applications, defendants shall file an affidavit with this Court demonstrating

compliance. This matter shall remain open pending receipt of that affidavit. Defendants’

motion for remand is hereby GRANTED IN PART.

3. MOTION TO STRIKE IN PART.

Defendants move to strike plaintiffs’ second and third claims pursuant to FRCP 12(f). 

The second claim alleges unreasonable delay in processing the FBI name checks in violation

of the APA while the third claim seeks a writ of mandamus compelling defendants to timely

complete the name checks. Defendants contend that these claims are immaterial and

impertinent as they were raised for the first time in the third amended complaint without leave

of this Court and without notice to defendants. Plaintiffs do not oppose dismissal, but argue

that the claims should be dismissed as moot based on defendants’ representation that the FBI

name checks for all three plaintiffs have been completed. In their reply, defendants agree that

mootness provides a valid basis for the dismissal of these claims. Without deciding the

propriety of striking these claims, this order concurs with the parties that the second and third

claims are moot. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ request to dismiss said claims as moot is GRANTED. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs’ request for voluntary dismissal of the first claim as

to plaintiff Shah is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ request to dismiss the second and third claims as moot

is also GRANTED. Plaintiffs have agreed to dismissal of the second and third claims having

relied on declarations provided by defendants that the FBI name checks have been completed. 

Accordingly, the second and third claims are DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. 

Finally, defendants’ motion to remand is GRANTED IN PART. This matter is remanded to CIS

Case 3:07-cv-03455-WHA Document 97 Filed 07/18/08 Page 6 of 7
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

7

with an instruction that the agency adjudicate the naturalization applications of plaintiffs Sayed

and Vandewalle-Callinan by a target date of AUGUST 1, 2008, with a hard deadline of

AUGUST 18, 2008 . Once the naturalization applications have been adjudicated, defendants

shall file an affidavit with this Court demonstrating compliance. The matter shall remain open

pending receipt by the Court of that affidavit. It is requested that plaintiffs Sayed and

Vandewalle-Callinan be scheduled for the next available oath of citizenship ceremony

following adjudication of their naturalization applications, assuming that they are granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 18, 2008. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-03455-WHA Document 97 Filed 07/18/08 Page 7 of 7