Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07697/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07697-1/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LINYU DENG,

Petitioner,

 v.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, et al.,

Respondents. /

No. C 06-7697 SI

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

APPLICATION FOR FEES

Petitioner’s application for fees is scheduled for a hearing on September 14, 2007. Pursuant to

Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines that the matter is appropriate for resolution without oral

argument, and VACATES the hearing.

Petitioner requests fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412. Under

that statute, a litigant is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs if: (1) he or she is the prevailing party; (2)

the government fails to show that its position was substantially justified or that special circumstances

make an award unjust; and (3) the requested fees are reasonable. Id. § 2412(d)(1)(A); Perez-Arellano

v. Smith, 279 F.3d 791, 793 (9th Cir. 2002). Petitioner contends that he is entitled to fees because the

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) adjudicated petitioner’s application for

naturalization after this Court remanded this case to USCIS “with instructions to adjudicate petitioner’s

application as soon as possible after receiving the FBI name check results.”

The Court finds that petitioner is not entitled to fees because the government has shown that its

position was substantially justified. In making this determination, the Court considers the totality of the

circumstances to analyze whether the government’s position was “reasonable.” League of Women

Voters of Cal. v. FCC, 798 F.2d 1255, 1257 (9th Cir. 1986). Here, the government successfully sought

Case 3:06-cv-07697-SI Document 21 Filed 09/10/07 Page 1 of 2
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

remand of petitioner’s application on the ground that USCIS has more expertise than the Court in

adjudicating such applications. The government also explained that the delay in adjudicating

petitioner’s application was due to the fact that the agency was awaiting petitioner’s FBI name check

results. The Court recognizes that petitioner’s lawsuit likely hastened the processing of petitioner’s

application. However, as detailed in the government’s motion to remand, there are often significant

delays in adjudicating naturalization applications due to both the volume of security checks conducted

by USCIS, and because USCIS must coordinate with other agencies. 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby DENIES petitioner’s application for fees and costs.

(Docket No. 15).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 10, 2007 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-07697-SI Document 21 Filed 09/10/07 Page 2 of 2