Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07697/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07697-0/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 GRANTING RESPONDENTS’

MOTION FOR REMAND

Respondents’ motion for remand is scheduled for a hearing on May 25, 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.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner Linyu Deng became a lawful permanent resident on May 2, 2000. See Hadary Decl.

¶ 14. Petitioner filed an “N-400” Application for Naturalization on July 15, 2003. Id. An FBI name

check was initiated on August 5, 2003. Id. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

(“USCIS”) interviewed petitioner regarding his application on February 20, 2004. Id. 

On December 15, 2006, petitioner filed the instant “petition for hearing on naturalization

application.” The petition alleges that USCIS has not adjudicated petitioner’s naturalization application

because USCIS has not received the results of the FBI name check. Petition ¶ 12. On April 18, 2007,

USCIS requested that the FBI expedite petitioner’s name check. See Hadary Decl. ¶ 14. According to

USCIS, as soon as the required security checks are completed, USCIS will adjudicate petitioner’s

application for naturalization. Id.

Case 3:06-cv-07697-SI Document 14 Filed 05/22/07 Page 1 of 3
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

 8 U.S.C. § 1446 addresses the process by which applicants for naturalization are investigated

and examined.

2

DISCUSSION

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 examination. That section provides,

(b) Request for hearing before district court

If there is a failure to make a determination under section 1446 of this title before the end

of the 120-day period after the date on which the examination is conducted under such

section,1 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.

8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). 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); El-Daour v. Chertoff, 417 F. Supp. 2d 679 (W.D. Pa. 2005). Here, petitioner’s initial

interview took place on February 20, 2004, more than 120 days before petitioner filed the instant action.

Respondents have moved to remand this case to the USCIS with instructions that the agency

adjudicate petitioner’s naturalization application promptly after receiving the results of the FBI name

check. Petitioner has filed a qualified opposition, requesting that the Court either adjudicate the

naturalization petition, or remand to USCIS with instructions to adjudicate the petition “forthwith.” The

parties also dispute whether petitioner is entitled to seek attorneys’ fees and costs in connection with

the instant petition.

The Court finds it appropriate to remand this action to USCIS because that agency has

considerably more expertise than the Court in adjudicating naturalization petitions. See generally

Ibrahim v. Still, 2007 WL 841790 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2007) (discussing process of adjudicating such

petitions). Although the Court is sympathetic to petitioner’s desire for an adjudication of his application

“forthwith,” the USCIS lacks authority to grant an application for naturalization until the background

checks are completed. See 8 U.S.C. § 1446(a). Accordingly, the Court will remand this action to

USCIS, with instructions to adjudicate petitioner’s application as soon as possible after receiving the

FBI name check results. 

Case 3:06-cv-07697-SI Document 14 Filed 05/22/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Respondents also seek an order directing the parties to pay for their own costs and fees, while

petitioner seeks an order requiring respondents to pay petitioner’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs,

in an amount to be determined after petitioner is naturalized. The Court finds that petitioner may be

entitled to recover fees and costs, and will not preclude petitioner from seeking fees and costs at the

appropriate time. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS respondents’ motion for remand. (Docket

No. 11). The USCIS shall adjudicate petitioner’s application for naturalization as soon as possible after

the agency receives the results of the FBI name check.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 22, 2007 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-07697-SI Document 14 Filed 05/22/07 Page 3 of 3