Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-01514/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-01514-0/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

 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited.

Case No. C 06-01514 JF (RS)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

(JFLC1)

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

BEI CHENG,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

ALBERTO GONZALES, UNITED STATES

ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al.,

 Defendants..

Case Number C 06-01514 JF (RS)

ORDER1 TO SHOW CAUSE

[Docket No. 1]

On February 27, 2006, Plaintiff Bei Cheng, proceeding pro se, filed a “petition for

hearing on naturalization application under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b)” against Defendants Alberto

Gonzales, United States Attorney General, Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the Department of

Homeland Security, Emilio T. Gonzalez, Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration

Services, David Still, San Francisco Director, United States Citizenship and Immigration

Services, and Robert S. Mueller, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”).

Plaintiff alleges the following. She is a lawful permanent resident of the United States,

Case 5:06-cv-01514-JF Document 3 Filed 03/21/06 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

Case No. C 06-01514 JF (RS)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

(JFLC1)

and she applied for naturalization on August 2, 2004. On March 15, 2005, Plaintiff underwent a

naturalization interview at the San Jose office of the United States Citizenship and Immigration

Services (“USCIS”). She was told that she passed the English and United States History and

Government tests, but that a decision could not be made until an FBI name check was completed. 

On May 13, 2005, Plaintiff had an appointment at the San Jose USCIS office, during which she

was again told that her FBI name check was still pending. On May 27, 2005, June 24, 2005, and

November 7, 2005, Plaintiff sent e-mail inquiries to the FBI National Name Check Program. 

These inquiries prompted no response. In response to a Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

request, Plaintiff received a letter from the FBI dated June 8, 2005. The letter stated: “A search

of the automated indices to the central records system files at FBI Headquarters located no

records.” Plaintiff made inquiries of San Jose USCIS office regarding the status of her

naturalization application on June 16, 2005, September 7, 2005, November 4, 2005, December 8,

2005, and January 19, 2006. In response to each inquiry, she was told that the FBI name check

was pending. She has not yet received a determination of her application for citizenship.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have violated 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), which provides:

If 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.

Such court has jurisdiction over the matter and may either determine the matter or

remand the matter, with appropriate instructions, to the Service to determine the

matter.

Plaintiff requests that this Court adjudicate the naturalization application or issue a writ of

mandamus requiring Defendants to adjudicate her application immediately.

Good cause therefore appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

(1) The Clerk of the Court shall serve by certified mail a copy of the petition and a

copy of this Order upon counsel for Defendants, the Office of the United States Attorney. The

Clerk of the Court also shall serve a copy of this Order upon Plaintiff Bei Cheng.

(2) Defendants shall, within thirty (30) days after receiving this order, file and serve

upon Plaintiff an answer, showing cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue. At the time

the answer is filed, Defendants shall lodge with the Court all records relevant to a determination

Case 5:06-cv-01514-JF Document 3 Filed 03/21/06 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

Case No. C 06-01514 JF (RS)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

(JFLC1)

of the issues presented by the complaint. If Defendants contend that Plaintiff has failed to

exhaust administrative remedies as to any ground for relief asserted in the complaint, Defendants

shall specify what administrative remedy remains available to Plaintiff. If Defendants waive or

concede the issue of exhaustion, Defendants shall so state in their answer. 

(3) Plaintiff may file a response to the matters raised in the answer within thirty (30)

days after receiving the answer. 

(4) Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, the matter will be deemed submitted upon

the filing of the response or upon the expiration of time to file a response.

DATED: March 20, 2006

 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-01514-JF Document 3 Filed 03/21/06 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

Case No. C 06-01514 JF (RS)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

(JFLC1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Bei Cheng

1507 Marlene Court

San Jose, CA 95118

Office of the United States Attorney

150 Almaden Blvd., Suite 900

San Jose, CA 95113

Case 5:06-cv-01514-JF Document 3 Filed 03/21/06 Page 4 of 4