Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-05570/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-05570-2/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

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS—No. C-07-05570 RMW

MAG

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-FILED on 4/16/08

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

XIANG ZHU,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, et al.,

Defendants.

No. C-07-05570 RMW

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS'

MOTION TO DISMISS

[Re Docket No. 9]

On November 1, 2007, plaintiff Xiang Zhu petitioned the court for a writ of mandamus to

compel action on his naturalization application. Defendants move to dismiss the complaint for

failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. For the reasons set forth below, the court

denies the motion.

I. BACKGROUND

Zhu is a citizen of People's Republic of China. Compl. ¶ 11. He has lived in the United

States since 1991. Zhu applied for citizenship on May 4, 2006 by filing an N-400 Application for

Naturalization. Id. ¶ 12. He was fingerprinted on July 6, 2006. Id. ¶ 14. United States Citizenship

and Immigration Services ("USCIS") requested the FBI to conduct a name check investigation. Zhu

has not yet been scheduled for a naturalization interview pending the results of the FBI

investigation.

Case 5:07-cv-05570-RMW Document 21 Filed 04/16/08 Page 1 of 5
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

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS—No. C-07-05570 RMW

MAG 2

On November 1, 2007, Zhu filed this action requesting the court (1) to compel the FBI to

complete his name check and to require USCIS to adjudicate his naturalization application within 20

days of the writ being issued, and (2) to award attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act,

28 U.S.C. § 2412.

II. ANALYSIS

Defendants move to dismiss on the basis that Zhu's complaint fails to state a claim, arguing

that because Zhu's background check has not been completed by the FBI, his complaint fails to state

a claim that USCIS has failed to take a legally required action, as the USCIS must await the FBI's

determination before it can commence the adjudication of Zhu's application. Defendants further

contend that the relief requested by Zhu is not available as to the FBI.

Zhu seeks relief under both the Mandamus Act and the APA. The Mandamus Act provides:

"A court has jurisdiction 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. A writ of

mandamus is appropriate when a plaintiff has "no alternative or adequate remedy" and the defendant

owes him a clear non-discretionary duty. Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602 (1984). The Ninth

Circuit has stated that "[m]andamus . . . 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 APA "authorizes suits by any person suffering legal wrong because of agency action." 5

U.S.C. § 702. Agency action includes the failure of an agency to act. 5. U.S.C. § 551(13). The

APA provides that "a reviewing court shall . . . compel agency action unlawfully withheld or

unreasonably delayed." 5 U.S.C. § 706(1). In order to bring a claim under the APA, two criteria

must be satisfied. First, the "agency action complained of must be final agency action." Norton v.

Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55, 61 (2004). Second, the plaintiff must assert that an

agency failed to take a discrete agency action that it is required to take. Id.

Defendants' contention, which appears to apply equally to Zhu's claims under both the

Mandamus Act and the APA, is that Zhu cannot establish the existence of a nondiscretionary

Case 5:07-cv-05570-RMW Document 21 Filed 04/16/08 Page 2 of 5
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

1

 "[N]one of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the [INS] shall be used to

complete adjudication of an application for naturalization unless the [INS] has received confirmation

from the Federal Bureau of Investigation that a full criminal background check has been completed."

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS—No. C-07-05570 RMW

MAG 3

ministerial duty as to the FBI. Magistrate Judge Zimmerman recently articulated a mandatory duty

owed directly to a naturalization applicant by the FBI:

I conclude that the FBI has a mandatory duty to complete its background check

within a reasonable time even though that duty is not expressly stated in a statute. 

Such a duty must follow from the 1997 funding legislation and the implementing

regulations which injected the FBI into the naturalization process by requiring that

the FBI conduct a full criminal background check of a naturalization applicant before

the USCIS can complete its adjudication of the application. Pub. L. 105-119, 111

Stat. 2440, 2448-49, Tit. I, Nov. 26, 1997.1

 This requirement is codified in 8 C.F.R. §

335.2(b). Other regulations require applicants to submit their fees to USCIS, which

in turn provides a portion of the fees to the FBI to complete the fingerprint and name

checks. 8 C.F.R § 334.2; 72 Fed. Reg. 4888, 4889 (proposed Feb. 1, 2007)

(proposing increased fees for applicants based, in part, to "costs due to the FBI for

background checks"). "[W]here Congress has conditioned CIS's mandatory action on

the FBI's completion of background checks, and where applicants must pay the FBI,

through CIS, to complete the background checks, the Court holds that Congress has,

by implication, imposed on the FBI a mandatory duty to complete the background

checks." Kaplan v. Chertoff, 481 F. Supp. 2d 370, 401 (E.D. Pa. 2007); see also Al

Daraji v. Monica, 2007 WL 2994608 at *3-*5 (E.D. Pa. 2007).

Moretazpour v. Chertoff, 2007 WL 4287363, 1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2007) (Zimmerman, M.J.)

(footnote number altered from n.6 to n.1); but see Antonishin v. Keisler, 2007 WL 2788841, *5

(N.D. Ill. Sept. 20, 2007) (acknowledging the funding arrangement discussed in Kaplan and

Moretazpour but declining to infer a duty "based on an appropriations measure directed to a

different agency"); Wang v. Gonzales, 2008 WL 45492 at *3 (D. Kan. Jan. 2, 2008) (same).

As noted in Moretazpour, this duty does not arise in cases involving the adjudication of I-485

applications for permanent residency, because the FBI's involvement in conducting background

checks arises by contract rather than by statute. Therefore, this court's previous decisions to dismiss

the FBI are distinguishable. See, e.g., Konchitsky v. Chertoff, 2007 WL 2070325 at *6 (N.D. Cal.

July 13, 2007) (Whyte, J.). The court agrees with Judge Zimmerman's conclusion and likewise finds

that the FBI has a mandatory duty to complete its background check on naturalization applicants in a

reasonable time. See also Kaplan, 481 F. Supp. 2d at 401 ("[I]t appears clear from a number of

Congressional enactments that Congress has imposed a mandatory duty on the FBI to perform

background checks [for naturalization applicants]."). Because funds to commence the adjudication

of the applicant's naturalization application cannot be used until the FBI has completed its

Case 5:07-cv-05570-RMW Document 21 Filed 04/16/08 Page 3 of 5
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

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS—No. C-07-05570 RMW

MAG 4

background check, it logically follows that the FBI has a duty to the applicant to complete its

background check in a reasonable time.

With regard to the USCIS, the court has previously held in the context of adjudication of I485 adjustment applications that there is a non-discretionary duty on the part of the USCIS to

adjudicate applications. See, e.g., Konchitsky, 2007 WL 2070325 at *3. Further, Title 8 sets forth

the steps for adjudicating a naturalization application in mandatory terms: After an individual has

filed a naturalization application, a USCIS service officer shall conduct an examination of the

applicant. 8 U.S.C. § 1446(b); 8 C.F.R. § 335.2(a). And if the examiner fails to make the

determination under § 1446 within 120 days of the examination, the applicant may seek judicial

relief. 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b).

USCIS argues that there can be no duty because, as discussed above, the USCIS cannot

conduct the examination of an applicant until "after the Service has received a definitive response

from the Federal Bureau of Investigation that a full criminal background check of an applicant has

been completed." 8 C.F.R. § 335.2(b). Because plaintiff's background check has not been received

from the FBI, USCIS asserts that it has no duty to proceed with the adjudication of Zhu's

application. The court declines to find that the USCIS has no nondiscretionary duty in this case

based solely on the fact that the FBI has not completed its background check. 

Because the court has concluded that the FBI has a duty to applicants to conduct background

checks in conjunction with naturalization applications Zhu's complaint sufficiently states a claim as

to the FBI. As to the USCIS, the court cannot conclude on the allegations in the complaint that

Wang cannot state a claim with regard to their failure to adjudicate his naturalization application. 

III. ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the court denies defendant's motion to dismiss.

DATED: 4/16/08

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:07-cv-05570-RMW Document 21 Filed 04/16/08 Page 4 of 5
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

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS—No. C-07-05570 RMW

MAG 5

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiff:

Geri Kahn gkahn@pacbell.net

Counsel for Defendants:

Ila Casy Deiss ila.deiss@usdoj.gov

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not

registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 4/16/08 /s/ MAG

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:07-cv-05570-RMW Document 21 Filed 04/16/08 Page 5 of 5