Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07881/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07881-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JIE QUAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary of the

Department of Homeland Security,

EMILIO GONZALES, Director, U.S.

Citizenship and Immigration

Services, CHRISTINA POULOS,

Director, California Service

Center, U.S.C.I.S., Robert Mueller,

Director of Federal Bureau of

Investigation, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. SC 06-7881

ORDER DENYING

DEFENDANTS'

MOTION TO DISMISS

I. INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) by

Defendants Michael Chertoff, et al. ("Defendants"). See Mot. 

Plaintiff Jie Quan ("Plaintiff") has opposed the Motion. See

Opp'n. 

For the reasons stated herein, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

is DENIED. 

Case 3:06-cv-07881-SC Document 13 Filed 06/07/07 Page 1 of 11
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

II. BACKGROUND

The instant action challenges the continued failure of the

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("CIS") to

render a decision on Plaintiff's Application to Adjust to

Permanent Resident Status, or I-485, ("Adjustment Application" or

"I-485"). See Compl.

Plaintiff is a native and citizen of the Peoples Republic of

China. Id. at 1. On January 20, 2005, she filed her I-485. Id.

Plaintiff's husband's employer filed an I-140, Immigrant Petition

for Alien Worker, on his behalf on the same day. See id. at 2-3.

Plaintiff's husband's I-140 was approved on May 13, 2005. Id. at

3. Plaintiff's Adjustment Application has yet to be approved. 

Id. Plaintiff had her biometric done for a second time on

September 28, 2006. Id. Plaintiff has been informed by CIS that

adjudication of her I-485 has been delayed by the failure of the

United States Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") to complete

her name check. Id.

On December 22, 2006, Plaintiff filed the Complaint, which

seeks to require Defendants to "expeditiously complete

[Plaintiff's] FBI security check for her I-485" and "expeditiously

complete [her] I-485," as well as reasonable attorney's fees and

any other relief the Court deems proper. Id. at 4. Defendants

filed the instant Motion on February 20, 2007. See Mot. 

/ 

Case 3:06-cv-07881-SC Document 13 Filed 06/07/07 Page 2 of 11
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

III. DISCUSSION

A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Defendants argue that the Complaint should be dismissed

pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1) on the ground that the Court lacks the

subject matter jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff's complaints

regarding the pace of the adjudication of her Adjustment

Application. See Mot. This argument fails.

1. Legal Standard

As a preliminary matter, Defendants' 12(b)(1) Motion is a

facial challenge to the Court's subject matter jurisdiction. 

In a facial attack, the challenger asserts that the

allegations contained in a complaint are insufficient on

their face to invoke federal jurisdiction. By contrast,

in a factual attack, the challenger disputes the truth

of the allegations that, by themselves, would otherwise

invoke federal jurisdiction. 

Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir.

2004). The gravamen of the Motion is that the Court cannot hear

Plaintiff's challenge to the pace of the process, because the law

vests unlimited discretion regarding that pace in the CIS. The

Motion does not dispute any facts in the Complaint which

Defendants admit would otherwise provide a basis for the Court's

jurisdiction. See Mot. 

Thus, the Court is obligated to accept all well-pleaded

factual allegations in the Complaint as true and construe them in

a light most favorable to the Plaintiff. See Warren v. Fox Family

Worldwide, Inc., 328 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2003). The Court,

Case 3:06-cv-07881-SC Document 13 Filed 06/07/07 Page 3 of 11
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

therefore, disregards the extrinsic evidence offered by

Defendants. Compare Safe Air for Everyone, 373 F.3d at 1039 ("In

resolving a factual attack on jurisdiction, the district court may

review evidence beyond the complaint without converting the motion

to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment."). Nonetheless,

Plaintiff, as the party seeking to invoke the Court's

jurisdiction, "has the burden of proving the actual existence of

subject matter jurisdiction," and the Complaint will be dismissed

if she fails to carry it. Thompson v. McCombe, 99 F.3d 352, 353

(9th Cir. 1996). 

2. Analysis

Plaintiff offers three potential bases for the Court's

jurisdiction to hear her claim against Defendants: federal

question under 26 U.S.C. § 1361; the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1361; and the Administrative Procedures Act 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 et

seq. See Compl. at 2. The Court hereby finds that it has

subject matter jurisdiction under the Mandamus Act and APA to hear

Plaintiff's mandamus complaint regarding the pace of her I-485

adjudication.

The Mandamus Act states: "The district courts shall have

original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to

compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency

thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff." 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1361. This relief is "available to compel a federal official to

Case 3:06-cv-07881-SC Document 13 Filed 06/07/07 Page 4 of 11
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 5

perform a duty if: (1) the individual's claim is clear and

certain; (2) the official's duty is nondiscretionary, ministerial,

and so plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt, and (3) no

other adequate remedy is available." Patel v. Reno, 134 F.3d 929,

931 (9th Cir. 1998).

Defendants implicitly concede, and the Court accepts,

construing the facts of the Complaint in the Plaintiff's favor,

that Plaintiff has no other adequate remedy available. See Mot. 

Defendants argue, however: "[t]he decision whether to grant or

deny plaintiff's adjustment of status is plainly committed to the

discretion of the Attorney General by statute," id. at 5; and

"[t]his discretion necessarily includes not only discretion over

whether to grant an adjustment, but also over how and when to do

so," id. at 6. On this basis, Defendants conclude that Plaintiff

has no clear and certain claim to "immediate adjudication . . .

and the defendants' actions are discretionary rather than

ministerial." Id. at 5.

This argument fails. First, Plaintiff has not made a claim

for immediate adjudication, but rather "expeditious[]"

adjudication. See Compl. at 4. Second, and more significantly,

Plaintiff has the clear and certain right--to which Defendants

have a corresponding non-discretionary duty--to have her I-485

adjudicated in a reasonable time.

It appears that all of the courts in this district which have

Case 3:06-cv-07881-SC Document 13 Filed 06/07/07 Page 5 of 11
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

been presented with this question, and the majority of other

courts presented with it, have found that the CIS, or its

predecessor agency, has a nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate

immigration applications within a reasonable time. See, e.g.,

Rzaq v. Poulos, No. 06-2461, 2007 WL 61884, *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8,

2007); Singh v. Still, 470 F. Supp. 2d 1064, 1067 (N.D. Cal.

2006); Aboushaban v. Mueller, No. 06-1280, 2006 WL 3041086, *1

(N.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2006); Iddir v. I.N.S., 301 F.3d 492, 500 (7th

Cir. 2002); Razik v. Perryman, No. 02-5189, 2003 WL 21878726, *2

(N.D. Ill. Aug. 07, 2003); Fu v. Reno, No. 99-0981, 2000 WL

1644490, *5 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 01, 2000); Yu v. Brown, 36 F. Supp. 2d

922, 932 (D.N.M. 1999); Agbemaple v. I.N.S., No. 97-8547, 1998 WL

292441, *2 (N.D. Ill. May 18, 1998). 

These courts have reached this result according to the

following basic line of analysis: 1) they conclude that while the

relevant statutes and regulations give the agency the discretion

to choose how to decide an application, they impose on it a

nondiscretionary duty to make such a decision; and 2) find that

such a decision must be made in a reasonable time, either without

reasoning or on the basis of APA Section 555(b). See, e.g.,

Singh, 470 F. Supp. 2d at 1067; Aboushaban, 2006 WL 3041086, at

*1-2.

Defendants make much of the following language in Section 245

of the Immigration and Naturalization Act ("INA"), which they

Case 3:06-cv-07881-SC Document 13 Filed 06/07/07 Page 6 of 11
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

claim gives the CIS unlimited discretion over the adjustment

process:

The status of an alien who was inspected and admitted or

paroled into the United States . . . may be adjusted by

the Attorney General, in his discretion and under such

regulations as he may prescribe, to that of an alien

lawfully admitted for permanent residence. 

8 U.S.C. § 1255(a); see Mot. at 3; compare Agbemaple 1998 WL

292441, at *2 (finding that this language created a nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate).

However, 8 C.F.R. § 245.2, which governs the application

process for Section 245 adjustments such as Plaintiff's, under the

heading "Decision," states: 

The applicant shall be notified of the decision, and if

the application is denied, of the reasons for denial. .

. . If the application is approved, the director shall

record the alien's admission for lawful permanent

residence as of the date one year before the date of the

approval of the application. 

8 C.F.R. § 245.2(5) (emphasis added). 

In line with analogous decisions by other courts, the Singh

court found that this language evidenced a mandatory duty on the

part of the predecessor agency of the CIS to adjudicate I-485

applications. 470 F. Supp. 2d at 1067 (also finding that identical

language in 8 C.F.R. § 209.2(f), which applied to another

application of a different kind at issue in the case, supported an

analogous conclusion); see also Aboushaban, 2006 WL 3041086, at *2

(finding that identical language contained in 8 C.F.R. § 209.2(f)

"creat[ed] a non-discretionary duty to adjudicate plaintiff's

Case 3:06-cv-07881-SC Document 13 Filed 06/07/07 Page 7 of 11
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 8

application"); Patel, 134 F.3d at 932 (finding that analogous

language in 22 C.F.R. § 42.81 supported its conclusion that a

consular office had a nondiscretionary duty to approve or deny a

visa application). In emphasizing the distinction between the

discretion granted to the agency by INA Section 245 and the

nondiscretionary duty imposed on it by applicable regulations, the

Singh court stated: "[T]here is a difference between the INS's

discretion over how to resolve an application and the INS's

discretion whether it resolves an application." 470 F. Supp. 2d

at 1067 (citing Yu, 36 F. Supp. 2d at 931) (emphasis in original);

see generally Patel, 134 F.3d at 931-32 ("[W]hen the suit

challenges the authority of the counsel to take or fail to take an

action as opposed to a decision taken within the consul's

discretion, jurisdiction exists.") 

Defendants also make much of the fact that 8 U.S.C. § 1255

"does not set forth any time frame in which a determination must

be made on an application." Mot. at 3. This fact, however, is

unavailing. 

Section 555(b) of the APA states: "With due regard for the

convenience and necessity of the parties or their representatives,

and within a reasonable time, each agency shall proceed to

conclude a matter presented to it." 5 U.S.C. § 555(b). "This

prescription applies when Congress imposes a duty but does not

articulate a specific time frame within which that duty must be

Case 3:06-cv-07881-SC Document 13 Filed 06/07/07 Page 8 of 11
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 9

honored." Rzaq, 2007 WL 61884, at *4; see also 5 U.S.C § 706

(obliging reviewing courts to "compel agency action unlawfully

withheld or unreasonably delayed.").

The Court FINDS that the CIS has a duty to adjudicate

Plaintiff's Adjustment Application within a reasonable time, and

thus the Court has jurisdiction to hear a mandamus complaint by

Plaintiff regarding the pace of that adjudication.

B. Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can be 

Granted 

1. Legal Standard

A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss tests the sufficiency of

the complaint. Dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate

only where it "appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove

no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to

relief." Levine v. Diamanthuset, Inc., 950 F.2d 1478, 1482 (9th

Cir. 1991), quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45–46 (1957). 

In reviewing the motion, a court must assume all factual

allegations made by the nonmoving party to be true and construe

them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. North

Star Intern. v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, 720 F.2d 578, 590 (9th Cir.

1993). 

2. Merits

As just discussed, Defendants have a non-discretionary duty

to adjudicate Plaintiff's Adjustment Application within a

reasonable time. See supra. 

Case 3:06-cv-07881-SC Document 13 Filed 06/07/07 Page 9 of 11
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 10

The Court's determination whether Defendants have violated

this duty is guided by what are known as the “TRAC factors”: 

(1) the time agencies take to make decisions must be

governed by a “rule of reason”[;] (2) where Congress has

provided a timetable or other indication of the speed

with which it expects the agency to proceed in the

enabling statute, that statutory scheme may supply

content for this rule of reason [;] (3) delays that

might be reasonable in the sphere of economic regulation

are less tolerable when human health and welfare are at

stake [;] (4) the court should consider the effect of

expediting delayed action on agency activities of a

higher or competing priority[;] (5) the court should

also take into account the nature and extent of the

interests prejudiced by the delay[;] and (6) the court

need not “find any impropriety lurking behind agency

lassitude in order to hold that agency action is

unreasonably delayed.”

Independence Min. Co., Inc. v. Babbitt, 105 F.3d 502, 507 n. 7

(9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Telecommunications Research & Action v.

F.C.C., 750 F.2d 70, 79-80 (D.C. Cir. 1984)) (modifications in

original); See Rzaq, 2007 WL 61884, at *6; Singh, 470 F. Supp. 2d

at 1069 (quoting an analogous standard articulated in Yu, 36 F.

Supp. 2d at 934). It is also relevant to "look to the source of

the delay--e.g., the complexity of the investigation as well as

the extent to which the defendant participated in delaying the

proceeding." Singh, 470 F. Supp. 2d at 1068 (quoting Saleh, 367

F. Supp. 2d at 512) (internal modifications omitted).

It appears possible that Plaintiff could prove a set of facts

that would lead this Court to conclude that the delay in

/

/

Case 3:06-cv-07881-SC Document 13 Filed 06/07/07 Page 10 of 11
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 11

adjudication of her Adjustment Application was unreasonable.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is

DENIED. The Court further SETS this action for summary

adjudication on August 17, 2007. The parties are ORDERED to

submit appropriate briefing in accordance with the rules. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 6, 2007.

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-07881-SC Document 13 Filed 06/07/07 Page 11 of 11