Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05512/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05512-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 8:1446 Petition for Naturalization Hearing

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DR. MALEK M. SHARIF,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney

General, in his official capacity; DR. EMILIO T.

GONZALEZ, Directed of the United States

Citizenship and Immigration Services, in his

official capacity; DAVID N. STILL, San

Francisco District Directed of the United States

Citizenship and Immigration Services, in his

official capacity; MICHAEL CHERTOFF,

Secretary of the Department of Homeland

Security, in his official capacity.

Defendants. /

No. C06-05512 MJJ

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Dr. Malek M. Sharif, Ph.D.’s Petition for Hearing on

Naturalization Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). For the following reasons, the Court orders

Defendants to show cause why the Court should not adjudicate the matter or why the United States

Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) has not ruled on Plaintiff’s application.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Sharif is a citizen of Iran and has been a lawful permanent resident of the United States since

1969 (M. Sharif Decl. at 3). Sharif has been married to a United States citizen since 1968 and has

two children, both United States citizens (id.). Sharif holds several degrees of higher education from

Case 3:06-cv-05512-MJJ Document 4 Filed 10/04/06 Page 1 of 4
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

 The INS is now known as the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services or USCIS.

2

 The date of the notice is not specified on the letter. However, it does state that Sharif passed his exams on July

1, 2003.

2

United States schools (id.). 

On May 11, 2001, Sharif applied to the INS1

 for naturalization (id.; M. Sharif Ex. A; M.

Sharif Ex. E). On September 2, 2001, Sharif was fingerprinted pursuant to his application (id.; M.

Sharif Exs. B-C). On May 24, 2002, Sharif was fingerprinted again (M. Sharif Decl. at 3). On July

1, 2003, Sharif was examined at the USCIS office in San Francisco, California (id. at 4). The INS

subsequently notified2 Sharif that he had passed tests in English, United States history and

government, but that a decision had not yet been made regarding his application (M. Sharif Decl. at

4; M. Sharif Ex. H). On July 15, 2003, Sharif made a written inquiry to the USCIS San Francisco

District Office regarding the status of his application (id.; M. Sharif Decl. Ex. I). On July 21, 2003,

the Citizenship Unit of the USCIS San Francisco office informed Sharif the only pending part of his

application was an “FBI name check,” and that upon clearance, he would be scheduled for an “oath

ceremony.” (Id. at 4).

On July 19, 2004, Sharif submitted a new inquiry about the status of his application to the

USCIS San Francisco office (id.). Sharif never received a response (id.). In September 2004, Sharif

had his fingerprints taken for a third time (id.).

On July 22, 2005, USCIS San Francisco District Director David N. Still notified Sharif that

Sharif’s application was still pending “completion of all necessary background checks.” (Id.).

On August 15, 2005, Sharif inquired in person at the USCIS San Francisco office, where he

was told that his FBI background checks had not been completed (id. at 4-5). On August 19, 2005,

Sharif’s wife, Alicia Sharif, wrote a letter to Congressman Tom Lantos seeking assistance in the

matter. (id. at 4-5; A. Sharif Decl. ¶ 4; A. Sharif Ex. A).

In September 2005, the Sharifs began using the USCIS online case status information service

(M. Sharif Decl. at 5). However, no information regarding Sharif’s application was available (id.). 

Subsequent checks to the USCIS website have been unsuccessful (id.). That same month, the

Sharifs made further inquiries to the USCIS San Francisco office, where they were told Sharif’s

Case 3:06-cv-05512-MJJ Document 4 Filed 10/04/06 Page 2 of 4
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

3

background check was still pending (id.).

On September 14, 2005, Sharif’s counsel made a written inquiry to the USCIS San Francisco

office regarding Sharif’s application (id.; Perez-Guerrero Decl. ¶ 2; Perez-Guerrero Ex. A). Counsel

did not receive a response. (M. Sharif Decl. at 5). On September 22, 2005, Sharif’s counsel

contacted the FBI regarding the status of Sharif’s background check (id.). Counsel was informed

that Sharif’s fingerprints had been processed and completed on September 7, 2004, and returned to

the INS (id.; Perez-Guerrero Decl. ¶ 3). Counsel was also informed a separate office was

responsible for processing name checks (id.). Counsel contacted the second office, where she was

provided with an e-mail address and instructions to send an e-mail inquiry (id.; Perez-Guerrero Decl.

¶ 4). On October 18, 2005, counsel e-mailed the FBI regarding Sharif’s name check but never

received a response. (M. Sharif Decl. at 5). Sharif’s counsel made a renewed inquiry with the FBI

in August 2006 to no avail (id. at 5-6). Sharif thereafter filed the instant Petition.

LEGAL STANDARD

An applicant for naturalization may apply to a United States District Court for a hearing on

his or her naturalization application if the USCIS fails to render a determination within 120 days

after the date of the applicant’s naturalization interview. 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). The District Court

may either determine the matter or remand with instructions. Id. If the matter is pending in district

court, USCIS lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the naturalization application. United States v.

Hovsepian, 359 F.3d 1144, 1160-61 (9th Cir. 2004).

ANALYSIS

USCIS has failed to render any decision on Sharif’s application. Because Sharif resides

within the Court’s district, more than 120 days have passed since Sharif’s examination, and USCIS

has failed to issue a decision on Sharif’s application, this Court has jurisdiction over Sharif’s case. 8

U.S.C. § 1447(b). The Court may either remand the case to USCIS with instructions or rule on

Sharif’s application. Id.

Case 3:06-cv-05512-MJJ Document 4 Filed 10/04/06 Page 3 of 4
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

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby orders Defendants to show cause as to why the

Court should not adjudicate Sharif’s Application and to explain why USCIS has not yet ruled on

Sharif’s Application. Defendants shall file their response within 25 days of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 10/04/2006 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05512-MJJ Document 4 Filed 10/04/06 Page 4 of 4