Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01474/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01474-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 462
Nature of Suit: Naturalization, Petition For Hearing of Denial
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 - 11cv1474

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ESMAEIL FARSHI,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 11cv1474-LAB (NLS)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS; 

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR

HEARING ON NATURALIZATION

PETITION;

ORDER RE: EX PARTE

COMMUNICATIONS; AND

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

vs.

JANET NAPOLITANO, Secretary of the

Department of Homeland Security, et al.,

Respondents.

On July 5, 2011, Petitioner filed a petition for a hearing on a naturalization application

pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), along with a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis

(IFP).

The IFP motion is a completed form, with Dr. Farshi’s answers to questions typed in.

The motion says Dr. Farshi has been unemployed since November 15, 2008, and has no

assets of any kind. It states his bank accounts are overdrawn: the checking account has a

balance of negative $1900 and the savings account has a balance of negative $98 It states

the amount owed on Dr. Farshi’s car is negative $4,500. Among the debts are a substantial

amount of credit card debt, a large “Mortgage debt because of foreclosure to bank,” and a

Case 3:11-cv-01474-LAB-NLS Document 3 Filed 08/09/11 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

- 2 - 11cv1474

substantial “loan to people.” It says Dr. Farshi lives with his parents and they are paying his

expenses.

The answers provided in the form motion are inconsistent and somewhat confusing,

possibly due to misplaced minus signs and ambiguity about whether money is owed or

owing. Obviously, Dr. Farshi does not owe a negative amount of money on his car loan, so

apparently he is using the minus sign either to indicate a debt or to mark the space between

the end of the question and his answer. While some banks will allow customers to overdraw

their checking accounts, it is unclear how Dr. Farshi came to overdraw his savings account,

unless, as with the car loan, he has used the minus sign for some other purpose. In that

case, he would have a positive balance in his savings account of $98 and probably also a

positive balance in his checking account of $1900. 

The remark about the mortgage is likewise unclear. If the bank took Dr. Farshi’s

home in foreclosure, it is unclear why he still owes a large amount of money on it. 

Finally, the motion’s statement that Dr. Farshi’s debts include a substantial “loan to

people” is unclear, and affects the merits of the motion. If as the motion states he has made

a loan or loans in such a large amount to various people, that is an asset, not a debt. And

because it is such a substantial asset, it would lead the Court to deny IFP status unless

some further explanation is given explaining why the loan is uncollectible or otherwise

worthless. On the other hand, it may be that Dr. Farshi means he has taken loans from

various people, in which case this would be true debt.

The result is that, as the IFP motion stands, the Court lacks sufficient information to

conclude that the standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is met. Ordinarily, the Court

would deny the motion without prejudice and give the Petitioner an opportunity to amend his

IFP motion. But here, it is clear his petition lacks merit. 

The Petition is brought under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). Petitioner alleges that he is entitled

to have his naturalization application adjudicated because the examination provided for

under 8 U.S.C. § 1446 has been held, and the 120-day period has passed. The Petition,

however, establishes conclusively that the examination was scheduled, but then was

Case 3:11-cv-01474-LAB-NLS Document 3 Filed 08/09/11 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 - 11cv1474

canceled and has not been conducted. (See Pet., ¶ 2.) The Petition also attaches copies

of notices from USCIS, including an official cancellation notice. The allegations say the

scheduled examination was canceled because Dr. Farshi’s background check had not been

completed. Under § 1447(b), the 120-day period begins to run on the date the examination

is conducted, not the date it is originally scheduled. See United States v. Hovsepian, 307

F.3d 922, 932 (9th Cir. 2002) (discussing application of § 1447(b)). The normal practice of

the USCIS is to wait until background checks are completed before conducting the

examination. Roshandel v. Chertoff, 554 F. Supp. 2d 1194, 1199 and n.1 (W.D.Wash., 2008)

(noting regulation requiring that applicants be interviewed only after the FBI has completed

its full background check, and the USCIS’ current practice consistent with this regulation).

It is therefore clear the Petition must be denied.

It has come to the Court’s attention that Dr. Farshi attempted to contact the Court by

using the Court’s e-file address to send an email. The email message expresses

impatience, upbraids the Court, and urges the Court to act quickly. Aside from Dr. Farshi’s

incorrect beliefs about the speed with which cases are adjudicated, the email is improper for

two reasons. First, it is a misuse of the email address. The document in which the email

address is published, this District’s Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and

Procedures Manual, § 2(h), explains that the e-file addresses are to be used only to submit

proposed orders, and specifically says “These e-mail addresses are not to be utilized to

communicate with the Court unless otherwise permitted or when communications are

solicited by the Court.” (boldface in original). 

Second, Civil Local Rule 83.9 and paragraph 14 of the chambers standing order both

forbid sending unauthorized ex parte communications to the Court. Implicit in the email’s

urgency is the understanding that any further delay is unreasonable, i.e., that Petitioner has

been waiting long enough and it is time his application was processed. Obviously, these are

disputed matters. The proper way to seek relief in such a situation is to file a motion in the

docket, where it will be known to all parties.

/ / /

Case 3:11-cv-01474-LAB-NLS Document 3 Filed 08/09/11 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

- 4 - 11cv1474

The IFP motion is DENIED, and the Petition is DENIED. This action is DISMISSED

WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 9, 2011

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-01474-LAB-NLS Document 3 Filed 08/09/11 Page 4 of 4