Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01993/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01993-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 462
Nature of Suit: Naturalization, Petition For Hearing of Denial
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgment

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Haroon Rashid Farooqi; Asyah Farooqi, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Eric Himpton Holder, Jr., et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 12-01993-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it plaintiffs’ “Motion to Reconsider the Claim Relief Sought”

(doc. 4), and defendants’ motion to dismiss (doc. 5). Plaintiffs did not respond to the motion

to dismiss and the time for doing so has expired. Plaintiffs’ failure to respond may be

deemed a consent to the granting of the motion and we may dispose of the motion

summarily. LRCiv 7.2(i). 

Plaintiffs Haroon Farooqi and Asyah Farooqi were born in Afghanistan and have been

lawful permanent residents of the United States since March 10, 2007, and November 29,

2005, respectively. Haroon Farooqi applied for naturalization on August 15, 2011, and

Asyah Farooqi applied for naturalization on December 16, 2011. On September 19, 2012,

plaintiffs filed this action to compel defendants to schedule naturalization interviews and to

adjudicate their applications within 120 days of the interview. 

On November 8, 2012, plaintiffs filed a “Motion to Reconsider the Claim Relief

Case 2:12-cv-01993-FJM Document 6 Filed 01/08/13 Page 1 of 2
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 -

Sought,” in which plaintiffs acknowledge that interviews were held on October 31, 2012.

Therefore, to the extent the motion is construed as a request to compel an interview, the

motion is denied as moot (doc. 4). 

An applicant for naturalization may apply to the District Court if there is a failure to

make a determination on a naturalization application “before the end of the 120-day period

after the date on which the examination is conducted.” 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). Plaintiffs were

interviewed on October 31, 2012, therefore the 120-day period has not yet expired. There

has been no adverse decision on the naturalization applications and the government has not

exceeded the 120-day period to act. Accordingly, because this case is no longer ripe, the

motion to dismiss is granted (doc. 5).

IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider (doc. 4). IT IS

FURTHER ORDERED GRANTING defendants’ motion to dismiss (doc. 5). The clerk

shall enter final judgment.

DATED this 7th day of January, 2013.

Case 2:12-cv-01993-FJM Document 6 Filed 01/08/13 Page 2 of 2