Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00296/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00296-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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 - 07cv0296

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JIANQIANG YU, Pro Se,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07cv0296-LAB (RBB)

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO

DISMISS

[Dkt No. 16]

vs.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary of the

Department of Homeland Security;

EMILIO GONZALES, Director U.S.

Citizenship and Immigration Services;

CHRISTINA POULOS, Acting Director,

California Service Center, U.S.

Citizenship and Immigration Services;

ROBERT MUELLER, Director Federal

Bureau of Investigation, 

Defendants.

Plaintiff Jianqiang Yu ("Yu"), proceeding pro se, filed his Complaint For Writ In The

Nature Of Mandamus And For Declaratory Judgment to compel government agency and

individual defendants (collectively "Defendants") to expedite the processing of his pending

Application to adjust his immigration status to permanent resident and to adjudicate the

matter by ordering Defendants to provide him with a "Notice of Approval." Compl. ¶ 20. The

matter is before the court on Defendants' Motion To Dismiss pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P.

("Rule") 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state

a claim upon which relief can be granted. Alternatively, Defendants seek summary judgment

in their favor, contending Yu is not entitled to immediate adjudication or approval of his

application from any source. 

Case 3:07-cv-00296-LAB-RBB Document 17 Filed 02/12/08 Page 1 of 7
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

 Service of process issues resulted in prosecution delays.

- 2 - 07cv0296

The deadline for Yu to file an Opposition passed on February 5, 2008, with no

response from him. "If an opposing party fails to file the papers in the manner required by

Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.2, that failure may constitute a consent to the granting of motions or

other requests for ruling by the court." Civ. L.R. 7.1.f.3.c. 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.

I. BACKGROUND

Yu, a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China, asks the court to adjudicate

the issues associated with the processing and granting of his application for adjustment of

his immigration status to permanent resident, on grounds Defendants have purportedly

impermissibly delayed the decision. Compl. ¶ 1. He alleges he properly filed an I-485

Application To Register Permanent Resident or Adjust Status pursuant to Section 245 of the

Immigration & Naturalization Act on June 13, 2005, with supporting documentation, in the

United States Citizenship and ImmigrationServices("USCIS") California Service Center, and

submitted fingerprints to the agency on October 11, 2005. Compl. ¶¶ 10-11. He alleges he

has received no "written notification" from USCIS, despite calling the USCIS, among other

people and places, from January 2006 to December 2006 when he was told several times

his name check was still pending. Compl. ¶¶ 10-13. He filed this action as a Petition For

Writ Of Mandamus on February 13, 2007.1

Yu identifies himself as a cancer researcher who has been "greatly damaged by the

failure of the Defendants to act in accord with their duties under law" through their allegedly

"arbitrary" and "unreasonable" delay and "inappropriate[] refus[al] to adjudicate the

application, thereby depriving him of rights to which [he] is entitled," specifically that he has

"been unable to obtain legal permanent residence, travel and work without restriction and

accrue time to be eligible for Naturalization as a citizen of the United States." Compl. ¶¶ 16-

17. He asks the court to enter an Order: "(a) requiring Defendants to properly adjudicate

Plaintiff's application for action on an approved petition (b) requiring Defendants to provide

Case 3:07-cv-00296-LAB-RBB Document 17 Filed 02/12/08 Page 2 of 7
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

 F. Gerard Heinauer is the Director of the Nebraska Service Center in Lincoln, Nebraska,

employed by the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), Citizenship and Immigration Services

Division ("USCIS"). As of the December 17, 2007 date of his, he represented: "Plaintiff's current work

permit is valid through September 26, 2008, and his current advance parole travel document is valid

through December 12, 2008." Heinauer Decl. ¶ 21.

- 3 - 07cv0296

the Plaintiff with Notice of Approval (c) granting court costs pursuant to law (d) such other

relief at law and in equity as justice may require." Compl. ¶ 20.

Defendants move to dismissal the Complaint on jurisdictional grounds and on grounds

Yu is not entitled to immediate adjudication or approval of his application for permanent

resident status. While he awaits final agency action, Yu "enjoys lawful nonimmigrant status

in the United States as an H-1B temporary alien worker based on a nonimmigrant worker

petition filed on his behalf by The Scripps Research Institute," a status "valid through March

24, 2008" and "renewable upon application by the employer."2 Heinauer Decl. ¶ 6. 

Defendants describe the statutory framework and requirements prerequisite to the

adjustment of the status of certain aliens who have been admitted into the United States.

Mot. p. 2; 8 U.S.C. § 1255. To obtain a "green card," the alien must present an application

for adjustment of status, must be eligible to receive an immigrant visa, must be admissible

into the United States for permanent residence, and there must be immediately available

to the alien an immigrant visa, among other things. Id.; Heinauer Decl. ¶ 7. The applicant

bears the burden to persuade the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security

("DHS") to exercise discretion in the alien's favor. See Randall v. Meese, 854 F.2d 472, 474

(D.C. Cir. 1988); Elkins v. Moreno, 435 U.S. 647, 667 (1978) ("adjustment of status is a

matter of grace, not right"); see Mot. 3:3-5 ("[T]he decision whether to grant or deny the

adjustment is discretionary, 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a), and the decisions about how to process the

evaluation of the application as well as the pace and manner of that investigation are

discretionary, id. at § 1252(9a)"). Defendants note no statutory or regulatory time limitation

is imposed on the Secretary's exercise of discretion to adjust the status of aliens. Mot. 2:14-

15, citing 8 C.F.R. § 245, et seq. Defendants represent they have and will continue to

process Yu's Application, and will adjudicate the Application as soon as processing is

complete. Mot. 1:19-23; Heinauer Decl. ¶¶ 4, 7, 12-17, 19-22, 26. 

Case 3:07-cv-00296-LAB-RBB Document 17 Filed 02/12/08 Page 3 of 7
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

 "By statute, only about 140,000 aliens and their derivative relatives can get green cards

through employment-based categories during each fiscal year, with percentage limits set by

Congress per country and within each preference category. . . . The priority date for visa number

purposes in Mr. Yu's case is the date of filing the Form I-140 visa petition: June 2, 2004. Visa

numbers for second preference workers from China are available only to aliens with priority

dates earlier than January 1, 2003. The Department of State has indicated that it has been

necessary to retrogress the China-mainland born second preference cut-off dates due to

extraordinarily heavy applicant demand for numbers by USCIS in connection with adjudication-ready

adjustment of status applications." Heinauer Decl. ¶¶ 8-9 (emphasis added).

- 4 - 07cv0296

With respect to timing, Defendants represent "a realignment of workload among the

Service Centers" resulted in Yu's adjustment of status application being "transferred to the

Nebraska Service Center on March 12, 2007, where it remains pending completion." Mot.

Exh. A, Heinauer Decl. ¶ 4. The processing of permanent residency applications entails

several forms of security and background checks conducted by the USCIS in conjunction

with the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"). Heinauer Decl. ¶¶ 7-10, Exh. A, USCIS

Fact Sheet. Defendants challenge Yu's allegations of unreasonable delay or failure to act

on his application on grounds: his application has been received, his background

investigation initiated, his fingerprints taken and updated, and his preliminary border

screening completed (Heinauer Decl. ¶¶ 4, 7, 12-17, 19-22); the Nebraska Service Center

alone is currently processing "approximately 187,930 employment-based applications for

adjustment of status" (Heinauer Decl. ¶ 19); and no visa is presently available to Plaintiff

(Heinauer Decl. ¶¶ 7-9). 

Defendants emphasize they "will adjudicate Plaintiff's application as soon as

processing is complete" and a visa becomes available. Mot. 1:23, 2:3. They demonstrate

Yu's circumstances do not warrant resort submission of an exceptional request to the FBI

to expedite his case, a process available in only limited circumstances not applicable to the

facts of his situation. Moreover, any expedited name check process in Yu's case "would not

effect a more rapid adjudication of the case" because "there are no visa numbers available

to him and his family under the current visa bulletin."3 Heinauer Decl. ¶¶ 22-24. 

Yu relies for the jurisdiction of this court to accord him the relief he seeks on:

28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1361 (the Mandamus Act); 5 U.S.C. § 701, et seq. (the Administrative

Procedures Act); and 28 U.S.C. § 2201, et seq. (the Declaratory Judgment Act). Compl. ¶ 7.

Case 3:07-cv-00296-LAB-RBB Document 17 Filed 02/12/08 Page 4 of 7
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

 Although normally the court must decide its own jurisdiction before reaching the merits of

the parties' dispute, the court considers Defendants acknowledgment "[t]he federal district courts

have split in determining whether [the REAL ID Act] precludes jurisdiction over complaints, such as

the one here, that seek expedition of pending adjustment applications under the Mandamus Act, 28

U.S.C. § 1362, and the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.," with no federal circuit court published opinion

yet resolving the issue, although Defendants submit that those courts recognizing the congressional

limitation on jurisdiction have properly read the statutory provisions at issue restricting jurisdiction.

Mot. 3:24-4:23 (citations omitted). Although the court is persuaded by Defendants' arguments it

almost certainly lacks jurisdiction under the Mandamus Act, the APA, or the Declaratory Judgment

- 5 - 07cv0296

Defendants dispute the subject matter jurisdiction of this court over the merits of Yu's

Complaint for lack of authority to adjudicate and approve his application for adjustment of

immigration status. They also move for dismissal or summary judgment on grounds Yu is

currently ineligible for final adjudication of the Application based on priority date processing,

no visa is currently available to award him, and his background and security checks are

incomplete and on-going.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standards

Federal courts possess only that power authorized by the Constitution or a statute.

See Bender v. Williamsport Area School Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986). The burden of

establishing subject matter jurisdiction is on the party asserting it. See Kokkonen v.

Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). In deciding a motion to

dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), the court looks to the nature of the jurisdictional

challenge. Doe v. Schachter, 804 F. Supp. 53, 56-57 (N.D. Cal. 1992). If the attack is facial,

the nonmoving party is entitled to the same protections it would receive in defending against

a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Id. at 57, citing Osborn

v. United States, 918 F.2d 724, 728-730 (8th Cir. 1990). A factual attack asks the court

considers matters outside the pleadings to resolve disputed jurisdictional facts. Id.

Defendants here do not attack the veracity of the facts Yu pleads, but rather supplement and

explain with evidentiary support the delay and restrictions on their ability to complete the

processing and adjudication of Yu's application. Consideration of facts outside the

Complaint allegations are necessary to resolve the Motion. Assuming jurisdiction without

deciding the jurisdiction issue,4 the court proceeds by applying Rule 12(d) standards

Case 3:07-cv-00296-LAB-RBB Document 17 Filed 02/12/08 Page 5 of 7
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

Act to order approval of a pending application for immigration status change while the application

remains under USCIS review and before all security checks are completed, it elects to address some

of the reasons Yu cannot prevail on his Complaint in granting dismissal. 

- 6 - 07cv0296

prescribed when a motion to dismiss under Rule (12)(b)(6) relies on matters outside the

pleadings:

(d) Result of Presenting Matters Outside the Pleadings. If, on a

motion under Rule 12(b)(6) or 12(c), matters outside the

pleadings are presented and not excluded by the court, the

motion must be treated as one for summary judgment under

rule 56. All parties must be given a reasonable opportunity to

present all the material that is pertinent to the motion.

Rule 12(d) (eff. Dec. 1, 2007).

Summary judgment is appropriate if the "pleadings, depositions, answers to

interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there

is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment

as a matter of law." Rule 56(c); see Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045-46 (9th Cir. 1989);

see also Arpin v. Santa Clara Valley Transp. Agency, 261 F.3d 912, 919 (9th Cir. 2001).

The moving party bears the initial burden of identifying the elements of the claim which that

party "believes demonstrates absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Celotex Corp.

v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to

establish, beyond the pleadings, that there is a genuine issue for trial. Id. at 324; Arpin, 261

F.3d at 919. To successfully rebut a properly supported summary judgment motion, a

plaintiff "must point to some facts in the record that demonstrate a genuine issue of material

fact and, with all reasonable inference made in the plaintiffs' favor, could convince a

reasonable jury to find for the plaintiffs." Reese v. Jefferson School Dist. No. 14J, 208 F.3d

736, 738 (9th Cir. 2000), citing, inter alia, Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. There is no genuine

issue for trial if, on the record as a whole, a rational trier of fact could not find in favor of the

party opposing the motion under governing law. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v.

Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). Yu has offered no rebuttal to Defendants'

showing he is not entitled to the relief he requests through judicial intervention.

\\

Case 3:07-cv-00296-LAB-RBB Document 17 Filed 02/12/08 Page 6 of 7
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 - 07cv0296

B. Dismissal Is Appropriate

The material facts of this case are undisputed, permitting the court to decide the

Motion as a matter of law. Yu cites no authority for the proposition this court can adjudicate

his immigration status in the circumstances of his case under any of the jurisdictional

statutes he identifies in the Complaint. Defendants' Motion, the Heinauer Declaration, and

its attachments demonstrate this court cannot and should not attempt to intervene in agency

determinations regarding the processing of permanent resident visa applications proceeding

in the normal course, despite the admittedly lengthy review process to be endured at this

time in the country's history by all applicants for permanent resident status. From the

evidentiary record accompanying the Motion, unrebutted by any opposition papers, USCIS

is processing Yu's application, as well as his family members' the applications for adjustment

of status, in accordance with standard, regulated procedures. The associated delays are

beyond its control, and would in any event fall within agency discretionary powers with which

this court may not interfere. Finally, Congressional action limiting the availability of the type

of visa Yu seeks forecloses the adjudicatory relief he seeks, from any source at this time.

 In addition to the considerations discussed above, the court construes Yu's failure to oppose

the Motion as consent to dismissal of his Complaint. Civ. L.R. 7.1.f.3.c.

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For all the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Defendants' unopposed

Motion To Dismiss Yu's Complaint under Rule 12(b) is GRANTED, and the case is

terminated in its entirety. The hearing presently scheduled for February 19, 2008 is

consequently taken off-calendar as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 11, 2008

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00296-LAB-RBB Document 17 Filed 02/12/08 Page 7 of 7