Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07456/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07456-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NATALYA MAGILKO BAKER,

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

DAVID N. STILL, et al.,

Defendant(s). /

No. C 06-7456 MEJ

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS'

MOTION TO DISMISS

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Natalya Magilko Baker is a citizen of Ukraine who entered the U.S. with a K-1

fiancé visa to marry David Baker, an American citizen. As part of the processing for the K-1 visa,

the U.S. Department of State ("DOS") completed the Federal Bureau of Investigations ("FBI") name

check and all other relevant security clearances. (DOS Foreign Affairs Manual, Pl. Opp., Ex. A.) 

Plaintiff married Baker on July 25, 2005. 

On September 11, 2005, Plaintiff filed an I-485 application to adjust her status to that of a

lawful permanent resident. Plaintiff's fingerprints were taken on October 22 and, on January 6,

2006, Plaintiff and her husband were interviewed by Citizenship and Immigration Services ("CIS"). 

Plaintiff inquired as to the status of her case on June 13, 2006, and learned that it remained pending

for the FBI name check. As set forth in the Declaration of Richard Valeika, a Supervisory District

Adjudications Officer at the San Francisco CIS District Office, the name check is still not complete. 

Case 3:06-cv-07456-MEJ Document 14 Filed 05/09/07 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 Page 2 of 4

Plaintiff filed this action on December 6, 2006, asserting jurisdiction under the Mandamus

Act and the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") in conjunction with 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff

seeks mandamus relief to compel Defendants to adjudicate her application to become a permanent

resident based on her marriage. 

On March 15, 2007, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that the Court lacks

jurisdiction over Plaintiff's complaint and the complaint fails to state a claim for which she is entitled

to relief.

II. DISCUSSION

Defendants assert that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to grant relief. However,

under the APA, it is well established that a district court has subject-matter jurisdiction over any

sufficiently stated claim for relief. Gelfer v. Chertoff, No. C06-6724 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26466

at *3 (N.D. Cal. March 22, 2007) (citing Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55, 63-65

(2004)). To invoke jurisdiction under the APA, Plaintiff must show that (1) CIS had a

nondiscretionary duty to act and (2) it unreasonably delayed in acting on that duty. Id.; 5 U.S.C. §

555(b), 701(a)(2). Once Plaintiff proves a right to relief under the circumstances, it is the Court's

duty to "compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed." 5 U.S.C. § 706(1).

The law gives the Attorney General a clear and non-discretionary duty to decide Plaintiff's

application: "The applicant . . . shall be notified of the decision . . . and, if the application is denied,

the reasons for the denial." 8 C.F.R. § 245.2(a)(5). Defendants concede that they have a nondiscretionary duty to process Plaintiff's application; however, they argue that CIS has full discretion

over when it makes a decision to approve or deny an application, and that the FBI and CIS are

working diligently to take all of the steps necessary to process Plaintiff's application for adjustment

of status to that of permanent legal resident. As such, no apparent amount of delay in this process is

subject to a district court's review. This order disagrees.

Allowing Defendants a limitless amount of time to adjudicate Plaintiff's application "would

be contrary to the 'reasonable time' frame mandated under 5 U.S.C.[§] 555(b) and, ultimately, could

negate the [CIS's] duty under 8 C.F.R. § 245.2(a)(5). Gelfer, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26466 at *4

Case 3:06-cv-07456-MEJ Document 14 Filed 05/09/07 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 Page 3 of 4

(citing Singh v. Still, 470 F.Supp.2d 1064, 1067-68 (N.D. Cal. 2006)). Instead, Defendants have a

statutorily prescribed duty "to adjudicate Plaintiff's application 'within a reasonable time' under 5

U.S.C. § 555(b), while giving wide berth to an agency's determination as to what time period is

reasonable." Id. at *5 (citing Yu v. Brown, 36 F. Supp. 2d 922, 932 (D.N.M. 1999)).

"What constitutes an unreasonable delay in the context of immigration applications depends

to a great extent on the facts of the particular case." Yu, 36 F. Supp. 2d at 934. Dismissal for failure

to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is proper only if it appears beyond a

reasonable doubt that Plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of her claim which would entitle

her to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45 (1957). Here, Defendants fail to show that the delay

is reasonable as a matter of law. Plaintiff filed her application almost two years ago. Defendants

contend that CIS is proceeding in an orderly fashion with Plaintiff's application, but the large volume

of petitions and applications requiring adjudication make the delay unreasonable. This is troubling

given that Plaintiff cleared all Defendants' security checks as a condition of receiving her K-1 visa

before she entered the country and, according to CIS' own website, as of April 18, 2007, the office

was adjudicating applications submitted on October 14, 2006 - more than one year after Plaintiff

submitted her application. 

Accordingly, the Court does not find Defendants' nearly two-year delay in the adjudication of

Plaintiff's application reasonable as a matter of law. However, on this motion to dismiss, it is

premature to consider the exact sources of the delay to determine whether it was actually

unreasonable under the circumstances. The proper vehicle for this determination is a motion for

summary judgment. Although Plaintiff opposed Defendants' motion to dismiss and simultaneously

moved for summary judgment with the same noticed hearing date, this does not accord with Civil

Local Rule 7-2. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion to dismiss is DENIED. Due to its procedural

defects, Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court

shall conduct a Case Management Conference on June 7, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom B, 15th

Case 3:06-cv-07456-MEJ Document 14 Filed 05/09/07 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 Page 4 of 4

Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. The parties shall file an updated joint

case management statement by May 31, including a proposed briefing and hearing schedule for

summary judgment motions. As a hearing is unnecessary at this time, the Court VACATES the May

17, 2007 noticed hearing on Defendants' motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 9, 2007 

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-07456-MEJ Document 14 Filed 05/09/07 Page 4 of 4