Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-01524/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-01524-0/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 06-1524 JF (RS)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

(JFLC1)

**E-Filed 3/20/06**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ZHANXIANG ZHANG,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

ALBERTO GONZALES, ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 06-01524 JF (RS)

ORDER1 TO SHOW CAUSE

[Docket No. 1]

On February 27, 2006, Plaintiff Zhanxiang Zhang filed a complaint against Defendants

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

Department of Homeland Security, Emilio Gonzalez, Director of United States Citizenship and

Immigration Services, Robert Mueller, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and

Christina Poulos, Acting Director of the California Service Center, requesting that this Court

issue a writ of mandamus in order to compel action on his application for naturalization.

Plaintiff alleges the following. He has been a lawful permanent resident of the United

Case 5:06-cv-01524-JF Document 4 Filed 03/20/06 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 06-1524 JF (RS)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

(JFLC1)

States since June 19, 2000, having been granted a greencard as an “Outstanding Researcher.” On

March 23, 2005, he applied for citizenship, and he was fingerprinted on May 12, 2005. He had

his naturalization interview on August 15, 2005. He made follow-up phone inquiries in January

and February of 2006, but he has not yet received a determination of his application for

citizenship.

Plaintiff alleges two claims for relief. First, he 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.

Second, he alleges that Defendants have violated the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §

701 et seq., because “they have unlawfully delayed agency action to which Plaintiff is entitled”

and “they have taken action that is arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion and not in

accordance with law, by failing to make a determination on the naturalization application of the

Plaintiff at the time of initial examination or within 120 days thereafter.”

Plaintiff requests that this Court issue a writ of mandamus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361

and 5 U.S.C. § 706(1), “compelling Defendants and their agents to make a determination of the

naturalization application of the Plaintiff, to notify the Plaintiff that his application has been

granted or denied, and if granted, of the procedures to be followed for the administration of the

oath of allegiance, within 20 days of the issuance of such writ.”

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 Attorney General of the United States of

America. A copy of this Order will be served electronically upon counsel for Plaintiff, Tricia

Wang.

(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

Case 5:06-cv-01524-JF Document 4 Filed 03/20/06 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 06-1524 JF (RS)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

(JFLC1)

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

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-01524-JF Document 4 Filed 03/20/06 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 06-1524 JF (RS)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

(JFLC1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Tricia Xiaoxia Wang tricia@wangslaw.com 

Case 5:06-cv-01524-JF Document 4 Filed 03/20/06 Page 4 of 4