Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05968/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05968-1/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

1

 Respondents did not file a reply brief.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAID MIRWAIS IBRHIMI,

 Petitioner,

 v.

DAVID N. STILL, District Director, San

Francisco District, Bureau of Citizenship and

Immigration Services, U.S. Dept. of Homeland

Security; EMILIO T. GONZALEZ, Director,

Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services,

U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security; MICHAEL

CHERTOFF, U.S. Secretary of Homeland

Security; ALBERTO GONZALES, U.S.

Attorney General, 

Respondents. /

No. C06-5968 MJJ

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO REMAND

TO UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP

AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES

(USCIS)

INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is Respondents’ Motion to Remand to the United States Citizenship and

Immigration Services (“USCIS”) With Instructions. (Docket No. 14.) Petitioner Said Mirwais

Ibrahimi (“Petitioner” or “Ibrahimi”) opposes the motion.1

 For the following reasons, the Court

GRANTS IN PART Respondents’ Motion to Remand.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Petitioner was born in Afghanistan on February 5, 1960. (Petition for Hearing on

Naturalization Application p.5 06-5968 Docket # 1-1 (“Petition”)). He has been a lawful permanent

Case 3:06-cv-05968-MJJ Document 19 Filed 03/20/07 Page 1 of 7
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

2

resident in the United States since December 1, 1981. Id. Petitioner filed an Application for

Naturalization (Form N-400) through counsel on August 30, 2004. Id. An FBI name check was

initiated for Petitioner on September 21, 2004. (Declaration of Richard Ricks ¶ 14.) Petitioner was

examined on October 12, 2005 for naturalization at the USCIS San Francisco office. Id. On June 1,

2006, Petitioner sent a letter to the Immigration Officer at the San Francisco Office of the USCIS by

certified mail, asking about the status of his case. Petition at 6. On June 22, 2006, Petitioner

received a response, which indicated that his application was “still pending for the completion of all

necessary background checks,” and that a decision cannot be made until the case has completed the

security checks. Id. On October 16, 2006, USCIS requested that the FBI expedite the name check. 

(Declaration of Richard Ricks ¶ 14.) Petitioner Ibrahimi filed his Petition for Hearing on

Naturalization Application on October 26, 2006, over one calendar year from his interview with the

USCIS. 

LEGAL STANDARD

8 U.S.C § 1447(b) provides for judicial review of a naturalization petition in which a decision

has not been made within 120 days of the examination. The statute states as follows:

If there is failure to make a determination under [INA] § 335 [8 U.S.C.

§ 1446] 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.

Courts have determined that the “examination” referred to in this provision is the initial

interview scheduled under 8 U.S.C. § 1446. See U.S.A. v Hovsepian, 359 F.3d 1144, 1151 (9th Cir.

2004) (treating the initial interview date as the trigger for the 120-day period for § 1447(b)); ElDaour v. Chertoff, 417 F.Supp.2d 2d 679 (W.D.Pa. 2005) (finding that interview date was the date of

“examination” under § 1447(b)).

When an action is filed under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), the Court may provide relief by

adjudicating the naturalization application. In the alternative, the Court may remand the matter to the

USCIS with appropriate instructions.

ANALYSIS

Case 3:06-cv-05968-MJJ Document 19 Filed 03/20/07 Page 2 of 7
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

2

 8 U.S.C. § 1446(b) provides:

(b) Conduct of examinations; authority of designees; record

The Attorney General shall designate employees of the Service to conduct examinations upon applications for naturalization.

For such purposes any such employee so designated is authorized to take testimony concerning any matter touching or in any

way affecting the admissibility of any applicant for naturalization, to administer oaths, including the oath of the applicant

for naturalization, and to require by subpoena the attendance and testimony of witnesses, including applicant, before such

employee so designated and the production of relevant books, papers, and documents, and to that end may invoke the aid of

any district court of the United States; and any such court may, in the event of neglect or refusal to respond to a subpoena

issued by any such employee so designated or refusal to testify before such employee so designated, produce relevant books,

papers, and documents if demanded, and testify; and any failure to obey such order of the court may be punished by the court

as a contempt thereof. The record of the examination authorized by this subsection shall be admissible as evidence in any

hearing conducted by an immigration officer under section 1447(a) of this title. Any such employee shall, at the examination,

inform the applicant of the remedies available to the applicant under section 1447 of this title.

3

A. The Procedure for the Evaluation of Applications for Naturalization.

A lawful permanent resident alien may be naturalized as a United States citizen if he meets

the five-year statutory residency requirement, has resided continuously in the United States from the

date of her application to the time of admission as a citizen, and is of good moral character. See 8

U.S.C. § 1427(a). 

Under the statutory scheme, the naturalization process commences with filing a Form K-400

application for naturalization. Id., § 1445(a); 8 C.F.R. § § 334.2 & 316.4. The Immigration Service

then conducts a background investigation of the applicant, including a review of all pertinent

immigration and police records. 8 U.S.C. § 1446(a); 8 C.F.R. § 335.1. Next, the applicant is

interviewed by an examiner who is authorized to grant or deny the application. 8 U.S.C. § 1446(d); 8

C.F.R. § 335.3.

If the application is denied, the applicant may request an administrative hearing before a

senior immigration examiner. 8 U.S.C. § 1447(a); 8 C.F.R. § 336.2. The hearing must be conducted

promptly, no later than 180 days from the date the appeal is filed. 8 C.F.R. § 336.2(b). If the

examiner upholds the denial, the applicant may seek a de novo review in federal district court. 8

U.S.C. § 1421(c); 8 C.F.R. § 336.9(b) & (c). However, the complete review of the naturalization

applicant is not limited solely to the interview by the examiner. The USCIS may also subpoena other

witnesses and request relevant books, papers, and documents that may be relevant to the

determination.2

 Further, Congress has added yet another requirement to the consideration of an

application for naturalization: completion of a criminal background investigation of the applicant. 

Public Law 105-119, Title I, Nov. 26, 1997, 111 Stat. 2448, provides in part that:

Case 3:06-cv-05968-MJJ Document 19 Filed 03/20/07 Page 3 of 7
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

During fiscal year 1998 and each fiscal year thereafter, none of the funds

appropriated or otherwise made available to the Immigration and

Naturalization Service shall be used to complete adjudication of an

application for naturalization unless the Immigration and Naturalization

Service has received confirmation from the Federal Bureau of

Investigation that a full criminal background check has been completed,

except for those exempted by regulation as of January 1, 1997.

To give effect to Congress’ enactment of this requirement, the USCIS adopted a regulation

requiring that no examination begin until after the Service received the FBI’s report of its full

criminal background check. 8 C.F.R. § 335.2(b) provides:

(b) Completion of criminal background checks before examination. The

Service will notify applicants for naturalization to appear before a

Service officer for initial examination on the naturalization application

only after the Service has received a definitive response from the

Federal Bureau of Investigation that a full criminal background check of

an applicant has been completed. A definitive response that a full

criminal background check on an applicant has been completed

includes:

(1) Confirmation from the Federal Bureau of Investigation that

an applicant does not have an administrative or a criminal

record;

(2) Confirmation from the Federal Bureau of Investigation that

an applicant has an administrative or a criminal record; or

(3) Confirmation from the Federal Bureau of Investigation that

two properly prepared fingerprint cards (Form FD-258) have

been determined unclassifiable for the purpose of conducting a

criminal background check and have been rejected.

8 C.F.R. § 335.2(b) (adopted March 17, 1998). Under this regulation, until the FBI

completed its record review, the USCIS cannot adjudicate the petitioner’s

naturalization application. See also Public Law, 105-119, Title I, Nov. 26, 1997, 111

Stat. 2448.

B. Remand is Appropriate Because the Petitioner’s Background

Check is Still Pending.

Because more than 120 days have passed since USCIS interviewed Petitioner,

this Court has jurisdiction to consider the motion. This Court may “either determine

the matter or remand the matter, with appropriate instructions, to [CIS] to determine

the matter.” 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). For the following reasons, the Court remands the

case to the USCIS with instructions.

Case 3:06-cv-05968-MJJ Document 19 Filed 03/20/07 Page 4 of 7
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

5

First, this Court is no better equipped to conduct background checks of

naturalization applicants. Manzoor v. Chertoff, 2007 WL 413227 *7 (E.D.Va. 2007). 

In this case, the FBI has not completed the background check. However, Petitioner

admits to two prior convictions (Petition for Hearing on Naturalization Application p.

7.) In 1987, Petitioner was convicted for conspiracy to distribute narcotics in New

York, although he alleges that his conviction has been purged for Petitioner’s

cooperation as an undercover agent for the Department of Justice Drug Enforcement

Agency. Id. Petitioner was also convicted for the solicitation of a prostitute in 1991.

Id. Complexities raised by the Petitioners’ criminal record, combined with his

asserted cooperation with authorities as an undercover agent, may be a factor in the

delay in completing the FBI background check. (Ricks Decl. ¶¶ 6-8.) Moreover,

these prior convictions, as well as the relevance of his asserted cooperation with the

Department of Justice, can best be evaluated by the FBI and USCIS. Further, the

USCIS may need to interpret the results of the background check and conduct follow

up questioning of an applicant. 

Plainly, USCIS and the federal law enforcement agencies with which it works

in the investigative process have a great deal more expertise than the Court in both (a)

identifying the potentially problematic information that has been uncovered in a

background check, and (b) following up to determine whether this information truly

reflects legitimate national security or public safety concerns, or instead is merely a

“false positive.” Khelifa v. Chertoff, 433 F.Supp.2d 836, 844 (E.D. Mich. 2006). Just

as the background check are best left to the FBI, the review of the results of the

mandatory background checks and any follow-up questioning of an applicant are best

left to the USCIS. See INS v. Orlando Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-17 (2002) (explaining

that “a court of appeals should remand a case to an agency for decision of a matter that

statutes place primarily in agency hands”).

Second, the Court finds no benefit in discouraging USCIS from continuing its

practice of scheduling interviews prior to the completion of the FBI background

Case 3:06-cv-05968-MJJ Document 19 Filed 03/20/07 Page 5 of 7
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

6

checks. Manzoor, 2007 WL 413227 at *7. Here, the USCIS did in fact conduct

Petitioner’s interview prior to the completed background check. However, while

Congress intended the 120 day time period to run from the completion of the

interview, the primary concern was to accelerate the application process, not impede

it. 

Id. It is beneficial to both USCIS and naturalization applicants if the agency opts to

get a head start on the application process by conducting interviews prior to the

completion of the background checks. Importantly, nothing in Section 1447(b)

mandates that USCIS make a decision within 120 days of the initial interview. Rather,

when USCIS fails to do so, Section 1447(b) merely provides a district court with

jurisdiction to determine the matter or remand the matter back to USCIS. Lastly, the

USCIS lacks authority to grant an application for naturalization until the background

checks are completed. See 8 U.S.C. § 1446(a). The USCIS has failed to make a

timely decision on Petitioner’s application due to delays in the completion of the

background checks. 

The Court therefore finds remand to be the most prudent course of action. 

However, given that Respondents were unable to provide any timeline by which the

FBI name check is expected to be completed, the Court does not believe that an openended remand furthers the administration of justice. The Court will therefore

conditionally remand this matter to the UCSIS and provide the UCSIS examiner until

the end of August 2007 to grant or deny Petitioner’s application. The Court reserves

jurisdiction and will exercise its jurisdiction to resolve Petitioner’s application in the

first instance if Petitioner’s application has not been ruled on by August 2007.

CONCLUSION

Respondents’ Motion to Remand to the United States Citizenship and

Immigration Services With Instructions (Docket No. 14.) is GRANTED IN PART. 

The matter is conditionally remanded to the UCSIS to allow UCSIS to make an initial

determination on Petitioner’s naturalization application by the end of August 2007. 

Case 3:06-cv-05968-MJJ Document 19 Filed 03/20/07 Page 6 of 7
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

7

The parties shall report to the Court by August 31, 2007 regarding the status of

Petitioner’s naturalization application. The Court reserves jurisdiction over this matter

to the extent Petitioner’s application has not been ruled on by August 2007. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March___, 2007 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05968-MJJ Document 19 Filed 03/20/07 Page 7 of 7