Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04264/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04264-3/pdf.json

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

---

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 Named defendants are Michael Chertoff, Secretary,

Department of Homeland Security; Emilio T. Gonzalez, Director,

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”);

Michael B. Mukasey, Attorney General; Alfonso Aguilar, Chief,

USCIS; Rosemary Melville, District Director, USCIS; and Robert

Mueller, Director of Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”).

2 All parties have consented to my jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) for all proceedings, including

entry of final judgment. 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAIMAK MORETAZPOUR,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, et al.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-4264 BZ

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

DISMISS

On August 20, 2007, plaintiff filed a complaint seeking

an order requiring defendants1 to expeditiously complete the

security check on his application for naturalization;

requiring USCIS to process his naturalization application to

conclusion; and seeking attorneys fees.2

 The complaint

asserts jurisdiction principally under the Mandamus Act, 28

Case 3:07-cv-04264-BZ Document 15 Filed 12/05/07 Page 1 of 6
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 A court has jurisdiction, “in the nature of mandamus

to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any

agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.” 28

U.S.C. § 1361. A writ of mandamus is appropriate when a

plaintiff has “no alternative [or] adequate remedy” and the

defendant owes him a “clear non-discretionary duty.” Id.; see

Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 616-17 (1984). 

4 Under the APA, “a person suffering legal wrong

because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by

agency action withing the meaning of a relevant statute, is

entitled to judicial review thereof.” 5 U.S.C. § 702. The APA

requires agencies to act within a “reasonable time” on matters

presented to it. 5 U.S.C. § 555(b). Courts have the authority

to “compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably

delayed.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(1). However, the Supreme Court has

“limited that authority to compelling ministerial, nondiscretionary actions-actions the agency is legally required to

take.” Ajmal v. Mueller 2007 WL 2071873 at *2 (E.D. Pa.)

citing Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55, 63

(2004). 

2

U.S.C. section 13613 and the Administrative Procedures Act,

“APA” 5 U.S.C. section 702, et seq.4 These acts essentially

provide avenues for relief to a plaintiff who has been denied

an administrative action which a government defendant is

legally required to take. 

Plaintiff, an electrical engineer who is a citizen of

Iran, contends that defendants are legally required to process

his naturalization application in a reasonable time. His

complaint alleges that on July 21, 2006, he filed an

application for naturalization which remains pending with the

USCIS. Plaintiff is not aware of further action taken toward

processing his application since August 15, 2006. When

plaintiff inquired regarding the delay in adjudicating his

application, USCIS responded that his application was delayed

by the background check. He alleges he does not have a

criminal record and attached two law enforcement documents

Case 3:07-cv-04264-BZ Document 15 Filed 12/05/07 Page 2 of 6
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 A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) should be

granted only if plaintiff’s complaint fails to set forth facts

sufficient to establish a plausible right of recovery. See

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007). 

For the purposes of a motion to dismiss, the complaint is

construed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff and all

properly pleaded factual allegations are taken as true. 

Everest & Jennings, Inc. v. American Motorists Ins. Co., 23

F.3d 226, 228 (9th Cir. 1994); see also Mitan v. Feeney, 2007

WL 2068106 at *9 (C.D. Cal.) (discussing the post-Twombly

standard). 

3

which support his allegations. Based on what defendants have

told him, he believes that “the FBI name check appears to be

the only reason for delay” of his naturalization application. 

His urgency is due, in part, to his desire to get his wife out

of Iran. 

Defendants argue that the complaint should be dismissed

for failure to state a claim because plaintiff has no legal

right to have his application processed within a reasonable

time.5 Defendants contend that because USCIS does not have

the authority to process plaintiff’s application until after

the FBI conducts a criminal background check, this court

cannot now order USCIS to complete the naturalization

application. Defendants also argue that the FBI does not have

a clear, non-discretionary duty to complete a criminal

background check within a particular period of time. Both

arguments fail. 

Taking the second argument first, I conclude that the FBI

has a mandatory duty to complete its background check within a

reasonable time even though that duty is not expressly stated

in a statute. Such a duty must follow from the 1997 funding

legislation and the implementing regulations which injected

Case 3:07-cv-04264-BZ Document 15 Filed 12/05/07 Page 3 of 6
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“[N]one of the funds appropriated or otherwise made

available to the [INS] shall be used to complete adjudication

of an application for naturalization unless the [INS] has

received confirmation from the Federal Bureau of Investigation

that a full criminal background check has been completed.”

7 Many of the cases defendants rely on to support their

contention that the FBI does not have a duty to complete a

background check within a reasonable period of time are

inapplicable. They involve applications for I-485 permanent

residency, in which the FBI’s involvement in conducting the

background check arises by contract, not by statute. Liu v.

Chertoff, 2007 WL 2435157 at *1 (D. Ore.); Konchitsky v.

Chertoff, 2007 WL 2070325 at *1, *6 (N.D. Cal.); Eldeeb v.

Chertoff, 2007 WL 2209231 at *1, *21 - *22 (M.D. Fla.);

Sozanski v. Chertoff, 2006 WL 4516968 at *1 (N.D. Tex.). To

4

the FBI into the naturalization process by requiring that the

FBI conduct a full criminal background check of a

naturalization applicant before the USCIS can complete its

adjudication of the application. Pub.L. 105-119, 111 Stat.

2440, 2448 - 49, Tit. I, Nov. 26, 1997.6 This requirement is

codified in 8 C.F.R. § 335.2(b). Other regulations require

applicants to submit their fees to USCIS, which in turn

provides a portion of the fees to the FBI to complete the

fingerprint and name checks. 8 C.F.R § 334.2; 72 Fed.Reg.

4888, 4889 (proposed Feb. 1, 2007) (proposing increased fees

for applicants based, in part, to “costs due to the FBI for

background checks”). “[W]here Congress has conditioned CIS's

mandatory action on the FBI's completion of background checks,

and where applicants must pay the FBI, through CIS, to

complete the background checks, the Court holds that Congress

has, by implication, imposed on the FBI a mandatory duty to

complete the background checks.” Kaplan v. Chertoff, 481

F.Supp.2d 370, 401 (E.D. Pa.); see also Al Daraji v. Monica,

2007 WL 2994608 at *3 - *5 (E.D. Pa.).7

Case 3:07-cv-04264-BZ Document 15 Filed 12/05/07 Page 4 of 6
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

the extent cases such as Shalabi v. Gonzales, 2006 WL 3032413

at * 5 (E.D. Mo.) and Antonishin v. Keisler, 2007 WL 2788841 at

*6 - *7 (N.D. Ill.) hold that the FBI does not have a mandatory

duty to complete a background check, I respectfully disagree

with them and they are not binding on me.

8 After an individual has filed a naturalization

application, Title 8 states that a USCIS service officer shall

conduct an examination of the applicant. 8 U.S.C. § 1446(b); 8

C.F.R. § 335.2(a). The examiner shall determine whether to

grant the application. 8 U.S.C. § 1446(d). If the examiner

5

 To hold otherwise could result in the indefinite

suspension of a naturalization application adjudication 

should the FBI fail to complete the requisite criminal

background check, which would violate the APA. It would also

defeat Congress’s purpose in requiring the background check. 

If there is no time frame attached to it, a failure to

complete the check would mean that applicants who should be

rejected because of their criminal background, would be

allowed to stay in the U.S. for long periods of time, while

applicants who should be approved because they have no

criminal background, are denied citizenship. Ahmadi v.

Chertoff, 2007 WL 3022573 at *5 (N.D. Cal.) As one court has

noted, “it appears clear from a number of Congressional

enactments that Congress has imposed a mandatory duty on the

FBI to perform background checks” for naturalization

applicants. Kaplan, 481 F.Supp.2d at 400. Accordingly, the

motion to dismiss the FBI is DENIED.

Turning to the USCIS, numerous courts have held that the

UCSIS is the primary agency responsible for processing

naturalization applications and that its duty to process a

naturalization application is mandatory.8 See e.g. Kaplan,

Case 3:07-cv-04264-BZ Document 15 Filed 12/05/07 Page 5 of 6
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

fails to make the determination within 120 days of the

examination, the applicant may seek judicial relief. 8 U.S.C.

§ 1447(b). 

6

481 F.Supp.2d at 399. Once the FBI completes its criminal

background investigation, the USCIS has a mandatory duty to

complete the adjudication of the application. The complaint

alleges that based on what plaintiff has been told, he

“believes” and it “appears” that the delay in the adjudication

of his naturalization application is because of the FBI’s

failure to complete the name check. On a motion to dismiss,

viewing the facts in light most favorable to plaintiff, it is

not clear as a matter of law that he may not have a plausible

right of recovery against USCIS. Again, one court has noted

that USCIS “simply does not possess unfettered discretion to

regulate aliens to a state of limbo, leaving them to languish

there indefinitely.” Kaplan, 481 F.Supp.2d at 399-400. 

Because defendants have a mandatory duty to adjudicate

the naturalization application within a reasonable time,

including the examination and criminal background check,

defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED. Defendants shall

answer by December 21, 2007.

Dated: December 5, 2007

 Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\Mortezapour v. Chertoff\ORDER.DENYING.MOTION.DISMISS3.BZ VERSION.wpd

Case 3:07-cv-04264-BZ Document 15 Filed 12/05/07 Page 6 of 6