Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00516/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00516-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KARNAIL KAUR GILL, )

 )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

Michael Chertoff, Secretary, et. al., )

)

)

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:07cv0516 AWI DLB

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO AUGMENT AND/OR INTRODUCE

EVIDENCE

(Document 19) 

Plaintiff Karnal Karur Gill (“plaintiff “) filed the instant motion to augment and/or

introduce evidence on October 5, 2007. Defendants filed an opposition on October 11, 2007. A

hearing was held before the undersigned on November 9, 2007. Attorney James Makasian

appeared for plaintiff and attorney Ada Bosque appeared for defendants.

BACKGROUND

On June 23, 2005, plaintiff filed an application for naturalization, including a medical

waiver form N-648 to explain her inability to understand English. Plaintiff’s treating physician

Dr. Manbir Singh filled out the medical waiver. AR 51-52. On November 16, 2005, plaintiff

was interviewed by the Citizenship and Immigration Service (“CIS”) but was unable to

demonstrate an ability to understand English. AR 54-55. Plaintiff was asked to provide an

updated medical waiver form and to address a list of questions concerning her medical condition

Case 1:07-cv-00516-AWI-DLB Document 26 Filed 11/26/07 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

as it related to her ability to understand English. AR 71-72. Instead, plaintiff submitted a second

for N-648 by Dr. Singh. AR 46-47. 

On February 2, 2006, plaintiff was interviewed a second time by CIS and again failed to

demonstrate an ability to understand English. AR 39-40. The application was denied on

February 14, 2006. Plaintiff appealed the decision and submitted a third N-648. AR 19. The

appeal was denied on February 1, 2007. Plaintiff filed this Complaint for Declaratory Judgment

of Naturalization on April 2, 2007.

Plaintiff contends that her application was improperly denied despite medical reports

from Dr. Manbir Singh regarding her mental status and physical disability that affect her ability

to speak English. On October 5, 2007, plaintiff filed the present motion to augment the record

and to introduce the expert testimony of Dr. Singh regarding her medical condition. Plaintiff

urges the court to allow such evidence and testimony to augment the original alien file as well as

respond to and rebut defendants’ contrary medical opinions relating to her medical condition.

Defendants oppose the motion and point out that Dr. Singh provided three medical waiver

forms in support of plaintiff’s application for naturalization. Because the alien file already

includes evidence of Dr. Singh’s diagnosis, defendants argue that his expert testimony is

unnecessary and cumulative. To the extent plaintiff seeks to augment the record by introducing

evidence not presented to the agency during the adjudication, defendants argue the motion should

be denied for failure to exhaust her administrative remedies. 

DISCUSSION

8 U.S.C § 1421 provides for judicial review of the denial of an application for

naturalization:

c) Judicial review

A person whose application for naturalization under this subchapter is

denied, after a hearing before an immigration officer under section 1447(a) of this Title, may

seek review of such denial before the United States district court for the district in which such

person resides in accordance with chapter 7 of Title 5. Such review shall be de novo, and the

court shall make its own findings of fact and conclusions of law and shall, at the request of the

petitioner, conduct a hearing de novo on the application.

Case 1:07-cv-00516-AWI-DLB Document 26 Filed 11/26/07 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

8 U.S.C § 1421. See also Aparicio v. Blakeway, 302 F.3d 437, 440 (5th Cir.2002) (“Rather than

conducting an administrative review, the district court reviews the case de novo and makes its

own findings of fact and conclusions of law.”); 8 CFR § 336.9(a) (“[8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) provides]

the sole and exclusive procedures for requesting judicial review of final determinations on

applications for naturalization ...”). 8 C.F.R. § 336.9 (c) provides:

(c) Standard of review. The review will be de novo, and the court

will make its own findings of fact and conclusions of law. The

court may also conduct, at the request of the petitioner, a hearing

de novo on the application for naturalization.

Plaintiff seeks to augment the Court’s record with additional information regarding Dr.

Singh’s original diagnosis offered to the agency in order to explain how her medical conditions

prevent her from understanding the English language. At the hearing, plaintiff confirmed that

she does not seek to introduce a new or different diagnosis but only to provide an amplification

of the evidence already submitted to the agency. With this assurance, the Court finds that the

supplemental information regarding plaintiff’s diagnosis will be helpful in conducting the de

novo review and therefore plaintiff’s motion will be granted. 

Based on the foregoing, plaintiff’s motion to augment and/or introduce evidence is

HEREBY GRANTED as discussed in this Order. Based on the parties’ agreement, the

deposition of Dr. Singh shall be taken prior to the hearing. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 26, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00516-AWI-DLB Document 26 Filed 11/26/07 Page 3 of 3