Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00902/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00902-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 465
Nature of Suit: Other Immigration Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

XIAOHAN DU,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, EMILIO

GONZALEZ, ROSEMARY MELVILLE, and

ROBERT MUELLER III

Defendants. /

No. C 08-00902 WHA

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

DISMISS AND VACATING

HEARING

INTRODUCTION

In this naturalization action, plaintiff Xiaohan Du filed a complaint for writ of

mandamus against defendants Michael Chertoff, secretary of the Department of Homeland

Security, Emelio Gonzalez, director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services,

Rosemary Melville, district director of the San Francisco United States Citizenship and

Immigration Services, and Robert Mueller III, the director of the Federal Bureau of

Investigations, for delays relating to the adjudication of plaintiff’s naturalization application. 

Defendants move to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for the

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

motion is GRANTED. 

STATEMENT

The well-pled allegations in the complaint are accepted as true. Plaintiff Xiaohan Du

has been a lawful resident of the United States since December 2000. On May 4, 2006, he filed

Case 3:08-cv-00902-WHA Document 17 Filed 06/02/08 Page 1 of 7
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

a N-400 application for naturalization along with the proper filing fee and biometric processing

fee. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Service issued him a notice of receipt on

May 15, 2006. Mr. Du then completed his biometric processing on May 30, 2006, pursuant to a

fingerprinting notification sent by the Department of Homeland Security. He has not been

notified to be re-fingerprinted or to have his biometrics processing redone.

Because Mr. Du lives in Fremont, California, his naturalization interview would have

taken place in the San Francisco district of the USCIS. According to the USCIS website,

dated January 15, 2008, N-400 naturalization applications in San Francisco should be

completely processed if they were filed before June 19, 2007 (Compl. Exh. 4). Mr. Du noticed

that his application fell outside the normal processing times, so he called the USCIS

customer-service number. The USCIS wrote him a letter, dated January 23, 2007,

stating (Compl. Exh. 5):

The processing of your case has been delayed. A check of our

records establishes that your case is not yet ready for decision,

as the required investigation into your background remains open.

Until the background investigation is completed, we cannot move

forward on your case. These background checks are required to be

completed on all applicants who apply for the immigration benefit

you are seeking. We will make every effort to make a decision on

this case as soon as the background checks are complete. If you do

not receive a decision or other notice of action from us within 6

months of this letter, please contact us by calling our customer

service number provided below.

About six months later, Mr. Du called USCIS to check on the status of his application. 

USCIS responded with another letter saying that the background check had not yet been

completed (Compl. Exh. 6). To date, USCIS has not scheduled a preliminary interview for

Mr. Du in history, civics, and English.

On February 12, 2008, plaintiff filed a complaint for writ of mandamus, claiming that

his application for naturalization had been unlawfully delayed by defendants. He says that he is

eligible for naturalization and, had defendants properly followed and implemented the relevant

statutes, he would have already been approved for naturalization. The Court has jurisdiction

over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 (federal question jurisdiction), 28 U.S.C. 2201

(declaratory judgment), and 5 U.S.C. 701 (Administrative Procedures Act). Mr. Du requests an

Case 3:08-cv-00902-WHA Document 17 Filed 06/02/08 Page 2 of 7
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

 Unless indicated otherwise, internal citations are omitted from all cites.

3

order remanding his application to the USCIS, requiring the USCIS to adjudicate his

naturalization application within 30 days and awarding reasonable costs. Defendants move to

dismiss the complaint pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1) (lack of subject-matter jurisdiction) and FRCP

12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted).

ANALYSIS

Defendants move to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, pursuant to

FRCP 12(b)(1). There are two types of attacks on subject-matter jurisdiction: facial and factual. 

“‘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.’ If the moving party converts ‘the motion to dismiss into a factual motion

by presenting affidavits or other evidence properly brought before the court, the party opposing

the motion must furnish affidavits or other evidence necessary to satisfy its burden of

establishing subject matter jurisdiction.’” Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 F.3d 358, 361 (9th Cir.

2004).1

Here, defendants assert a factual attack on subject-matter jurisdiction. Pursuant to the

Mandamus Act, “[t]he 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 (emphasis added). “Mandamus writs,

as extraordinary remedies, are appropriate only when a federal officer, employee, or agency

owes a nondiscretionary duty to the plaintiff that is ‘so plainly prescribed as to be free from

doubt.’” Stang v. IRS, 788 F.2d 564, 565 (9th Cir. 1986). 

The APA and Declaratory Judgment Act, on the other hand, do not confer independent

jurisdictional bases. In Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 104–05 (1977), the Supreme Court

held that the APA did not afford an implied grant of subject-matter jurisdiction permitting

federal judicial review of agency action. The Ninth Circuit further stated, “The APA, however,

does not provide an independent jurisdictional basis; it only prescribes the standards for

Case 3:08-cv-00902-WHA Document 17 Filed 06/02/08 Page 3 of 7
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

reviewing agency action once jurisdiction is otherwise established.” Staacke v. U.S. Secretary

of Labor, 841 F.2d 278, 282 (9th Cir. 1988). Similarly, the DJA does not provide an

independent jurisdictional ground. “[T]he operation of the Declaratory Judgment Act is

procedural only. Congress enlarged the range of remedies available in the federal courts but did

not extend their jurisdiction.” Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 339 U.S. 667, 671–72

(1950). To proceed further with this action, Mr. Du would have to establish mandamus

jurisdiction.

“Mandamus jurisdiction exists when a plaintiff has a clear right to relief, a defendant has

a clear duty to act and no other adequate remedy is available. This duty must be ‘ministerial

and so plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt.’” Piledrivers’ Local Union No. 2375 v.

Smith, 695 F.2d 390, 392 (9th Cir. 1982). In Piledrivers’ Local Union, the Ninth Circuit noted,

“Appellees [the attorney general, associate attorney general, and commissioner of the

Immigration and Naturalization Service] argue that the district court lacked subject matter

jurisdiction because their statutory duty is not clearly defined. In Knuckles v. Weinberger,

511 F.2d 1221 (9th Cir. 1975), this court held that jurisdiction in a mandamus action is not

lacking even though the statute requires construction to determine the duties it creates. 

If the appellees’ duty is clear after the court interprets the statute, the court has jurisdiction. 

We, therefore, hold that this court has jurisdiction to determine whether the appellees owe a

duty to appellant, and if so, the nature of that duty.” Ibid.

In the instant action, Mr. Due requests that the Court issue a mandate remanding the

application to USCIS and ordering it to adjudicate the application within 30 days of the order. 

The main question here is whether this duty is clear after the relevant statute is interpreted. 

If it were, this order could exercise subject-matter jurisdiction. Defendants of course contend

that the duty is unclear; Mr. Du fails to establish the existence of a nondiscretionary, ministerial

duty. This order agrees with defendants.

“The sole authority to naturalize persons as citizens of the United States is conferred

upon the Attorney General.” 8 U.S.C. 1421. On March 1, 2003, the Department of Homeland

Security and the USCIS assumed responsibility for these applications, and the discretion

Case 3:08-cv-00902-WHA Document 17 Filed 06/02/08 Page 4 of 7
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

formerly vested in the Attorney General was conferred to the Secretary of Homeland Security. 

See 6 U.S.C. 271(b); 6 U.S.C. 551(d). 

“Before a person may be naturalized, an employee of the Service, or of the United States

designated by the Attorney General [now the Secretary of Homeland Security], shall conduct a

personal investigation of the person applying for naturalization.” 8 U.S.C. 1446(a). 

According to 8 C.F.R. 335.1:

Subsequent to the filing of an application for naturalization,

the Service shall conduct an investigation of the applicant. 

The investigation shall consist, at a minimum, of a review of all

pertinent records, police department checks, and a neighborhood

investigation in the vicinities where the applicant has resided and

has been employed, or engaged in business, for at least the five

years immediately preceding the filing of the application. 

The district director may waive the neighborhood investigation of

the applicant provided for in this paragraph.

See also 8 C.F.R. 335.2 (requiring “[c]ompletion of criminal background checks before

examination”). In short, after an alien applies for naturalization, the USCIS and FBI must

conduct various security and background checks. These checks currently include:

(i) an interagency border inspection system name check; (ii) an FBI fingerprint check; and (iii)

FBI name checks (Def. Exh. A at ¶ 6).

Congress has explicitly stated that no naturalization application can be adjudicated until

the INS has received the results of the background check. “[D]uring fiscal year 1998 and each

fiscal year thereafter, none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the

Immigration and Naturalization Service shall be used to complete adjudication of an application

for naturalization unless the Immigration and Naturalization Service has received confirmation

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

completed, except for those exempted by regulation as of January 1, 1997.” Depts. of

Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1998,

Pub. L. 105–119, 111 Stat. 2440, 2448–49. In an update dated February 20, 2007, the USCIS

stated that it no longer requested that the FBI expedite a name check unless “the case meets one

of the other approved criteria, including: (1) Military deployment; (2) Age-out cases not

covered under the Child Status Protection Act, and applications affected by sunset provisions

Case 3:08-cv-00902-WHA Document 17 Filed 06/02/08 Page 5 of 7
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

such as diversity visas; (3) Significant and compelling reasons, such as critical medical

conditions; and (4) Loss of social security benefits or other subsistence at the discretion of the

USCIS District Director” (Def. Exh. B). The USCIS therefore has discretion in determining

whether or not to request expedited service from the FBI. 

Mr. Du does not dispute any of this. In Stang, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district

court’s dismissal of the case for lack of mandamus jurisdiction, reasoning that the IRS had no

“nondiscretionary duty” to assess the plaintiff’s taxes on demand. Stang, 788 F.2d at 565. 

Similarly here, because Mr. Du is unable to establish that defendants have a nondiscretionary,

ministerial duty to expedite the background check (and therefore the naturalization-adjudication

process), this order finds that there is no mandamus jurisdiction.

In a brief opposition paragraph, Mr. Du only relies upon two cases to assert

subject-matter jurisdiction. In Ahmed v. Dept. of Homeland Security, 328 F.3d 383, 386

(7th Cir. 2003), the Seventh Circuit stated that “it is necessary to distinguish between the

court’s power to adjudicate the petition and the court’s authority to grant relief. Only the

former necessarily implicates the subject-matter jurisdiction of the court; the latter will depend

on whether the statute on which the plaintiff is relying imposes a clear duty on the officer or

employee of the United States.” Ahmed is inapposite, however. The Seventh Circuit focused

on whether mandamus was unavailable because no effective relief could be granted, one of the

three prerequisites for mandamus relief. Here, this order examines whether or not there is

mandamus jurisdiction (and not relief). 

Mr. Du also relies upon Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678 (1946). “The failure to state a

proper cause of action calls for a judgment on the merits and not for a dismissal for want of

jurisdiction.” Id. at 682. He argues that in resolving the threshold issue of whether a court has

jurisdiction to consider the merits of a mandamus action, “the allegations of the complaint,

unless patently frivolous, are taken as true to avoid tackling the merits under the ruse of

assessing jurisdiction.” Ahmed, 328 F.3d at 386. Again, Mr. Du’s reliance on the Bell decision

is misplaced. This order is not “tackling the merits”; it is not determining whether or not

plaintiff is entitled to mandamus relief. Rather, this order evaluates whether a district court has

Case 3:08-cv-00902-WHA Document 17 Filed 06/02/08 Page 6 of 7
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

 Under certain circumstances, an applicant may seek review in a federal district court for delays in

processing naturalization applications. For example, Section 1447(b) of Title 8 of the United States Code

provides: “[i]f there is a failure to make a determination under section 1446 of this title before the end of the

120-day period after the date on which the examination is conducted under such section, the applicant may

apply to the United States district court for the district in which the applicant resides for a hearing on the

matter.” See also Ahmadi v. Chertoff, 2007 WL 3022573 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (Alsup, J.). This statute does not

apply in the instant action, however. Mr. Du has not yet had his interview, so there is no running of the 120-day

clock. Nor does plaintiff point to any other time-specific statute that mandates a clear duty for the USCIS to

expedite FBI background checks before an interview.

7

the power to even adjudicate the motion. It concludes that there is no mandamus jurisdiction

because USCIS has no nondiscretionary duty to expedite FBI background checks. Accordingly,

defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted. This order need not address whether or not plaintiff

has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted.2

CONCLUSION

Because there is a lack of mandamus jurisdiction in this action, the motion to dismiss is

GRANTED. The hearing set for June 5, 2008, is VACATED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 2, 2008. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-00902-WHA Document 17 Filed 06/02/08 Page 7 of 7