Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01014/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01014-1/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

- 1 - 07cv1014

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MOHAMMAD HASSAN DAIRI,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07cv1014 JM(JMA)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

vs. DISMISS

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary, et al.,

Defendant.

Defendants Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the Department of Homeland

Security, Emilio Gonzalez, Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration

Services (“USCIS”), and Alberto Gonzalez, Attorney General, move to dismiss the

complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or, alternatively, to remand the action

to USCIS. Plaintiff Mohammad Hassan Dairi opposes the motion. Neither party

requests oral argument and, pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), the court finds this matter

appropriate for decision without oral argument. For the reasons set forth below, the

court dismisses the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

BACKGROUND

On June 5, 2007 Plaintiff commenced the present action seeking relief in the

nature of mandamus to compel Defendants to move forward with processing his

application for naturalization. Plaintiff is a lawful permanent resident of the United

States and is a citizen and native of Jordan. (Compl. ¶1). Plaintiff filed his first

Case 3:07-cv-01014-JM-JMA Document 9 Filed 11/01/07 Page 1 of 4
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

 The parties are in general agreement that subject matter jurisdiction, if it exists at all, would

only be appropriate under the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. §1361. The Mandamus Act vests the district

courts with original jurisdiction of “any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or

employee of the Untied States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.” 28

U.S.C. §1361.

- 2 - 07cv1014

application for naturalization in 2004 but subsequently withdrew that application. On

May 4, 2006 Plaintiff filed his second application for naturalization on Form N-400.

Plaintiff alleges that he made “countless” inquires regarding the status of his

naturalization application and was informed “that his applications had been held up

because of some kind of ‘background’ investigation.” (Compl. 5).

Plaintiff alleges that the Government “had has ample opportunity to investigate

the ‘background’ of this Plaintiff.” (Compl. ¶6). Plaintiff also sets forth data from the

USCIS website indicating that the USCIS “is now processing for interview

naturalization applications that it received on or before October 12, 2006,” and that he

has not yet been interviewed. (Compl. ¶7). Plaintiff requests that Defendants be

compelled “to move forward with Plaintiff’s application for naturalization and schedule

him for interview.” (Compl. at p.3:18-19).

Defendants move to dismiss the complaint on the ground that mandamus relief

is unavailable as Plaintiff’s naturalization application is in the process of adjudication

and remains in the background investigation phase. Plaintiff opposes the motion. 

DISCUSSION

Defendants challenge the subject matter of the court to entertain this action under

28 U.S.C. §1361 and move to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and

(12(b)(6).1

 “Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and is available to compel a federal

official to perform a duty only 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.” Kildare v. Saenz, 325 F.3d

1078, 1084 (9th Cir. 2003). The parties focus on the first and second elements. 

Here, Defendants have satisfied their evidentiary burden to show that Plaintiff’s

application for naturalization is in the process of adjudication and therefore Plaintiff’s

Case 3:07-cv-01014-JM-JMA Document 9 Filed 11/01/07 Page 2 of 4
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 - 07cv1014

claim is neither clear and certain nor one subject to nondiscretionary, ministerial duties.

While Defendants have the nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate Plaintiff’s application,

the USCIS, the FBI, and other federal agencies have a great deal of discretion in how

they process the Congressionally mandated background investigation. Defendants

submit the declaration of Janaki Rangaswamy, supervisor of the N-400 unit responsible

for overseeing the processing of N-400 applications from the initial receipt of the

application through the receipt of the FBI name check clearances. Mr. Rangaswamy

declares that Plaintiff filed his N-400 application on May 4, 2006 and that a request for

a background security name check was submitted to the FBI on May 17, 2006. He also

declares that the FBI name check remains pending and that continued monitoring of

Plaintiff’s N-400 application reveals that “the FBI query continues to return its current

response of ‘pending’ or ‘IP,’ [and] this agency’s hands are tied, and we are unable to

move beyond this point.” (Rangaswamy Decl. ¶6; Supp. Decl. ¶7). 

Further, there appears to be no legal basis for the court to exercise subject matter

jurisdiction over the action to compel Defendants to proceed with the naturalization

interview. Defendants are precluded from proceeding with an applicant interview

(generally considered the final step in the naturalization examination process), as

requested by Plaintiff, until completion of the FBI background investigation. 8 C.F.R.

§335.2(b). Moreover, 8 U.S.C. §1421(c) only permits judicial review after the USCIS

has denied an application for naturalization and 8 U.S.C. §1447(b) permits judicial

review only after the examination is complete. Neither event has yet to occur to

empower this court to review Plaintiff’s naturalization application or compel

Defendants to afford him an examination interview. 

In sum, the totality of the circumstances, in light of Defendants’ evidentiary

showing, fails to demonstrate the type of extraordinary circumstances which warrant

mandamus relief. See Kildare, 325 F.3d at 1084. The manner in which background

investigations are conducted are the types of discretionary functions not properly the

subject of mandamus actions. The evidentiary record establishes that Defendants are

Case 3:07-cv-01014-JM-JMA Document 9 Filed 11/01/07 Page 3 of 4
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

 The court is sympathetic to Plaintiff’s desire to naturalize. However, in light of modern-day

security concerns, Defendants are under heightened legislative obligations to conduct thorough

background investigations of applicants prior to adjudicating applications for naturalization - - even

if such background investigations result in substantial delays in naturalization. 

- 4 - 07cv1014

already doing precisely what Plaintiff requests this court to compel – process his

naturalization application. Accordingly, the court concludes that it presently lacks

mandamus jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s complaint. 

The court dismisses the present action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.2

The Clerk of Court is instructed to close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 1, 2007

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

Case 3:07-cv-01014-JM-JMA Document 9 Filed 11/01/07 Page 4 of 4