Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00637/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00637-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 08:1329 Writ of Mandamus to Adjudicate Visa Petition

---

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 - 07cv637-WQH (NLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHNNY KLIANA SOMO,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07cv0637-WQH (NLS)

ORDER REMANDING CASE

TO UNITED STATES CITIZEN

AND IMMIGRATION

SERVICES

(Doc. # 5)

vs.

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney

General of the United States, et al.,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge: 

The matter pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Remand. (Doc. #5).

BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff Johnny Somo is a citizen of Iraq, and has been a lawful permanent resident of

the United States since December 1995. (Compl. ¶¶ 3, 10.) In March 2004, Plaintiff applied

to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“CIS”) for naturalization, and on

September 24, 2004, Plaintiff successfully passed his naturalization interview. (Compl. ¶ 12,

14.) Though Plaintiff meets all statutory requirements for naturalization, CIS failed to

adjudicate Plaintiff’s application for naturalization within 120 days of Plaintiff’s naturalization

interview. (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 15, 17.) After inquiry by Plaintiff regarding the status of his

application, CIS informed Plaintiff that it could not adjudicate his application because his

Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) background check was not complete. (Compl. ¶ 18.)

On April 10, 2007, Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this matter against the U.S. Attorney

General, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, and the Director, District

Director and Chief of Citizenship of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. (Compl.

Case 3:07-cv-00637-WQH-NLS Document 8 Filed 09/10/07 Page 1 of 5
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 - 07cv637-WQH (NLS)

¶¶ 4-8.) Plaintiff requests that this Court assume jurisdiction over this matter, and compel the

Defendants to conclude the adjudication of Plaintiff’s naturalization application. (Compl. at

5.) Plaintiff also seeks an award of reasonable fees and costs pursuant to the Equal Access to

Justice Act. (Compl. at 5.) On July 11, 2007, Defendants moved to remand Plaintiff’s

Complaint to the CIS for adjudication of his naturalization application pending completion of

the FBI investigation. (Doc. # 5.)

DISCUSSION

Defendants move to remand on the grounds that CIS cannot adjudicate Plaintiff’s

application until the FBI completes Plaintiff’s background check. If this Court chooses to

remand the matter back to CIS with instructions to adjudicate Plaintiff’s application,

Defendants argue that the Court should refrain from setting a specific deadline for

adjudication. Plaintiff argues that “the Defendants should be ordered to promptly complete

Plaintiff’s background checks and adjudicate Plaintiff’s naturalization application.

Alternatively, this court should exercise jurisdiction over this case and adjudicate the

application.” (Doc. # 6 at 2.)

I. Statutory Framework 

A lawful permanent resident alien is eligible for naturalization as a United States citizen

if he or she (1) satisfies a five-year statutory residency requirement; (2) has resided

continuously in the United States from the date of his or her application to the time of his or

her admission as a citizen; and (3) is of good moral character. See 8 U.S.C. § 1427(a). To

become a citizen, the applicant must file an application for naturalization. See 8 U.S.C. §

1445(a).

The process for investigating and conducting examinations of applicants for

naturalization is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1446. The statute requires persons designated by the

Attorney General, in this case CIS employees, to conduct a background investigation of all

applicants. See 8 U.S.C. § 1446(a)-(b). The background investigation includes a review of all

pertinent immigration and police records and a neighborhood investigation. See 8 U.S.C. §

1446(a); 8 C.F.R. § 335.1. The applicant must then be interviewed by a CIS examiner. See

Case 3:07-cv-00637-WQH-NLS Document 8 Filed 09/10/07 Page 2 of 5
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 - 07cv637-WQH (NLS)

8 U.S.C. § 1446(d). During the interview the applicant must successfully complete testing

with regard to the statutory requirements of English proficiency and knowledge of the history

and government of the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1423(a). Ultimately, the CIS examiner

is authorized to make a determination to grant or deny the application. See 8 U.S.C. § 1446(a);

8 C.F.R. § 335.3. This determination should occur within 120 days following the initial

examination of the applicant. See 8 C.F.R. § 335.3.

In 1997, Congress adopted a mandate requiring that the FBI conduct investigations with

respect to every naturalization application and that CIS await the completion of such

investigations before determining whether a naturalization application should be granted or

denied. See Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, The Judiciary, and Related

Agencies Appropriations Act of 1998, Pub.L.No. 105-119, 111 Stat. 2440 (1997).

Consequently, in 1998, the Immigration and Naturalization Service amended 8 C.F.R. §

335.2(b) to require that CIS delay the initial interview of an applicant until completion of the

FBI investigation. Sometimes, as in the present case, CIS will conduct the examination of an

applicant before a full criminal background check is completed.

II. Subject Matter Jurisdiction 

District courts have jurisdiction to review an application for naturalization “[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. . . .” 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). The

Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit has interpreted “examination” to be synonymous with

“interview.” United States v. Hovsepian, 359 F.3d 1144, 1159-60 (9th Cir. 2004).

CIS interviewed Plaintiff with respect to his application for naturalization on September

24, 2004, and since that time Defendants have not adjudicated Plaintiff’s application. As more

than 120 days have elapsed between Plaintiff’s interview and the filing of this Complaint, the

Court concludes that it has subject matter jurisdiction. See id. at 1159-64; see also Ghazal v.

Gonzales, No. 06CV2732-LAB (NLS), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43602 (S.D. Cal. Jun. 14,

2007); Gonzales v. Gonzales, No. 07CV124-JM (AJB), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39998 (S.D.

Cal. May 31, 2007).

Case 3:07-cv-00637-WQH-NLS Document 8 Filed 09/10/07 Page 3 of 5
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 - 07cv637-WQH (NLS)

III. Remedy

Where a district court has subject matter jurisdiction over an application for

naturalization pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), the district court may either (1) determine the

matter by making a decision on the naturalization application, or (2) remand the matter with

appropriate instructions to CIS. See Hovsepian, 359 F.3d at 1160; see also Ghazal, 2007 U.S.

Dist. LEXIS 43602, at *8-9. “Generally speaking, a court . . .should remand a case to an

agency for decision of a matter that statutes place primarily in agency hands,” because “[i]n

immigration matters, the executive branch is accorded great deference, as evidenced by the

statutory and regulatory schemes established for processing citizenship applications.” Ghazal,

2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43602, at *8-9 (citations omitted). When CIS’s delay in adjudicating

an application for naturalization results from the FBI’s investigative process, “it is

inappropriate to make a citizenship determination before [the FBI’s] information is known,

absent abusive or egregious circumstances.” Id. (citing Khelifa v. Chertoff, 433 F. Supp. 2d

836, 843-45 (E.D. Mich. 2006)).

It is apparent that the delay in CIS’s adjudication of Plaintiff’s application for

naturalization is attributable to the FBI’s delay in processing Plaintiff’s background check.

The Court recognizes that FBI investigation delays have increasingly contributed to delays in

adjudication of naturalization applications. See Ghazal, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43602, at *7.

The Court understands Mr. Somo’s desire to become an American citizen, and sympathizes

with the delay that he must endure while the application process is under way. This Court

agrees, however, with the reasoning in Ghazal, that “[n]either the CIS nor the district court is

sufficiently informed to decide an application until the FBI completes the required criminal

background check to determine whether an applicant presents any national security or public

safety risk, nor are [CIS and the district court] equipped to conduct such investigations

themselves.” Id. (citing El-Daour v. Chertoff, 417 F. Supp. 2d 679, 684 (W.D. Pa. 2005)); see

also 8 C.F.R. § 335.2 (requiring CIS to examine an applicant only after the FBI completes its

background check). Accordingly, and after review of the parties’ arguments, the Court

concludes that remand of this matter is appropriate.

Case 3:07-cv-00637-WQH-NLS Document 8 Filed 09/10/07 Page 4 of 5
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 - 07cv637-WQH (NLS)

On June 5, 2007, CIS requested that the FBI expedite Plaintiff’s background check.

(Doc. #7 at 2.) There is no guarantee, however, that the background investigation will be

completed by a particular date or that the investigation will not uncover information which

requires further investigation. Because “only the FBI and the CIS are in a position to know

what resources are available to conduct” a background check, the Court declines to impose

deadlines for completion of the FBI background check and adjudication of the application in

this case. Ghazal, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43602, at *7 (citing Shalabi v. Gonzales, No.

4:06CV866 RWS, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77096, *5 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 23, 2006)).

Lastly, Plaintiff requests fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”).

The EAJA provides that prevailing parties in certain adversarial proceedings against the United

States may recover attorney’s fees from the United States. See 5 U.S.C. § 504; 28 U.S.C. §

2412. Here, Plaintiff is not entitled to these fees because, at this time, Plaintiff is not the

prevailing party.

CONCLUSION 

Defendant’s motion to remand is GRANTED. (Doc. # 5.) This matter is hereby

REMANDED to CIS with instructions that CIS adjudicate Plaintiff’s application for

naturalization as expeditiously as possible after the FBI’s completion of Plaintiff’s background

check. 

DATED: September 10, 2007

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00637-WQH-NLS Document 8 Filed 09/10/07 Page 5 of 5