Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00600/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00600-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 465
Nature of Suit: Other Immigration Actions
Cause of Action: 8:1446 Petition for Naturalization Hearing

---

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ahmed Al-Harbi, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Eric H. Holder, Jr., et al., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-600-PHX-GMS

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Defendants’ Motion for Limited Remand, (Doc. 11), and

Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for Limited Remand or Judicial Determination on Application,

(Doc. 14). For the following reasons, the Court grants Defendants’ Motion for Limited

Remand in-part, grants-in-part Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for Limited Remand, and denies

Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for a Judicial Determination on Application.

Plaintiff Ahmed Al-Harbi alleges that he is a citizen of Iraq and a lawful permanent

resident of the United States. In July 2003, Plaintiff filed an application for naturalization.

In 2004, he had his initial interview with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

(“CIS”). CIS has yet to make a determination on his application. The parties now agree that

this Court may “either determine the matter or remand the matter, with appropriate

instructions, to [CIS] to determine the matter.” 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b).

Defendants state that CIS is prepared to act on Plaintiff’s application, but that a

remand from this Court is needed first to allow CIS to do so. See United States v. Hovsepian,

Case 2:10-cv-00600-GMS Document 17 Filed 07/20/10 Page 1 of 3
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 -

359 F.3d 1144, 1159–60 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that where a district court has exclusive

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), the court may remand the matter to CIS). Defendants’

Motion then lists several proposed conditions of remand, one of which is to “schedule the

Re-Interview no later than 20 business days after the date the Interview Notice is sent out.”

It is unclear the extent to which Plaintiff opposes remand to CIS. Plaintiff contends

that Defendants’ proposed conditions of remand would violate 8 C.F.R. § 335.3, which

requires, in part, that the CIS “inform the applicant in writing of the grounds to be overcome

or the evidence to be submitted” in a Re-Interview. Plaintiff contends that Defendants’

proposed conditions state nothing about informing the applicant in writing of the basis and

evidence for the Re-Interview. It appears likely, however, that Defendants anticipated

sending Plaintiff such notice in the “Interview Notice” it offered to send. In any event, the

Court specifically will order that Defendants include all notice as required by federal law,

including 8 C.F.R. § 335.3.

Aside from this notice provision, Plaintiff offers no argument why remand would be

inappropriate, other than to note that this Court may also make a determination of his

application. Plaintiff provides his own proposed instructions upon remand, but those

instructions do not provide CIS with a reasonable time to complete a Re-Interview and to

render a fair and complete adjudication. Nonetheless, the Court is mindful that, despite

having his initial interview in 2004, Plaintiff still is without an adjudication of his

application. Upon review of both parties’ proposed conditions of remand, the Court remands

the case with instructions.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Limited Remand,

(Doc. 11), is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for Limited Remand,

(Doc. 14), is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for a Judicial

Determination on Application, (Doc. 14), is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that CIS shall comply with the following

Case 2:10-cv-00600-GMS Document 17 Filed 07/20/10 Page 2 of 3
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 -

instructions upon remand:

1. No later than 5 business days from the date of this Order, CIS shall send to

Plaintiff an Interview Notice and Request for Evidence (RFE), along with any other notice

required by law.

2. CIS shall schedule the Re-Interview no later than 20 business days after the date

the Interview Notice is sent to Plaintiff. 

3. CIS shall adjudicate the application and issue a decision no later than 10 business

days after the Re-Interview or 10 business days after the date it receives the documents

subject to a RFE, whichever is later. 

4. If the application is approved, CIS shall issue an oath ceremony notice to Plaintiff

no later than 5 business days after the date a decision is issued.

5. If CIS fails to make a timely decision, Defendants will notify the Court within 5

business days.

DATED this 20th day of July, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00600-GMS Document 17 Filed 07/20/10 Page 3 of 3