Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01493/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01493-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 8:1446 Petition for Naturalization Hearing

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM DOUANDJU,

Plaintiff,

v.

JONATHAN CRAWFORD, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-1493 EPG

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO REMAND

(Doc. 30)

I. Introduction

On September 24, 2016, Plaintiff, William Douandju (“Plaintiff”), appearing pro se, 

filed a complaint alleging Defendants Jonathan Crawford, et al., (“Defendants”) failed to 

timely process his naturalization application (“N-600”) and requests that the Court adjudicate 

the application pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). (Doc. 1). On June 27, 2016, Defendants filed a 

Motion to Remand Plaintiff’s case to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services 

(“USCIS”) so that the agency may adjudicate the application.

1

(Doc. 30). Plaintiff did not file a 

written opposition to the motion, however, the Court held hearings on August 18, 2016 (Docs. 

35-36) and on September 1, 2016 (Doc. 38). Government counsel and Plaintiff appeared 

 

1 This case was stayed several months (Doc. 21) because Plaintiff was placed in removal proceedings on December 

11, 2104, which divested this Court of jurisdiction to adjudicate Plaintiff’s naturalization application. De Lara 

Bellajardo v. Schiltgen, 378 F.3d 1042, 1046-47 (9th Cir. 2004) (when removal proceedings are pending, district 

courts retain only limited jurisdiction to review a denial of naturalization by USCIS, but not to adjudicate the merits 

of the petition in the first instance).

Case 1:14-cv-01493-EPG Document 40 Filed 09/07/16 Page 1 of 3
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

telephonically at both hearings and the Court heard oral argument. Upon consideration of the 

pleadings and arguments, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion. 

II. Discussion

Defendants argue that remand is appropriate, in part, because there is an outstanding 

issue regarding Plaintiff’s identity. At the time Plaintiff filed his application to become a legal 

permanent resident, he presented a birth certificate reflecting his date of birth as May 21, 1978. 

Later when applying for naturalization, he submitted a birth certificate indicating that his date of 

birth was May 21, 1985. Declaration of Aggie Verboon, Senior Immigration Services Officer, 

dated August 30, 2016. (Doc. 37-1). Given the filing of two different birth certificates, the 

government argues that the agency is in the best position to adjudicate the application. If the 

application is denied, Plaintiff may file another lawsuit in district court under 8 U.S.C. U.S.C. § 

1421(c), and review of that agency denial

would be de novo. The Court will have the benefit of the agency’s decision in considering any 

appeal. Plaintiff opposes the remand arguing that USCIS has taken too long to process his 

application and requests that the Court adjudicate his N-600 in the instant proceedings. 

8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) grants the Court authority to make a judicial determination of 

naturalization or remand the matter to USCIS with instructions to adjudicate. 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) 

(the court has jurisdiction over the matter and may remand the matter, with appropriate 

instructions, to the [USCIS] to determine the matter). The decision whether to remand is entirely 

within this Court’s discretion. U.S. v. Hovsepian, 359 F.3d 1144, 1161 (9th Cir. 2004). Given 

the unique circumstances presented here, the Court finds that remand to the agency is appropriate 

as USCIS is uniquely situated to apply its expertise in immigration matters to the adjudication of 

this application. INS v. Orlando Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 17 (2002).

III. Order

As outlined above, Defendant’s Motion to Remand (Doc,. 30) is GRANTED. Pursuant 

to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), the matter is remanded to USCIS with instructions to complete 

adjudication within 60 days from the date of this order.

Case 1:14-cv-01493-EPG Document 40 Filed 09/07/16 Page 2 of 3
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

USCIS is directed to file a status report advising the Court of the outcome of the 

adjudication, including a copy of any decision by November 9, 2016. All other deadlines are 

suspended until that date. A further status conference is set for November 14, 2016, at 8:30 

a.m. The parties may appear telephonically. To do so, each party is directed to use the following 

dial-in number and passcode: 1-888-251-2909; passcode 1024453.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 7, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01493-EPG Document 40 Filed 09/07/16 Page 3 of 3