Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01004/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01004-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory 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

1 Pursuant to LRCiv. 7.2(i), Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Defendants’

Motion to Dismiss may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion and the Court

may dispose of the motion summarily.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Raymundo Hernandez Gonzalez,

Plaintiff, 

 v.

Attorney General et al, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 06-1004-PHX-SMM

ORDER

 

Currently pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or in the

Alternative Motion to Remand (Doc. 13). Plaintiff has not filed a Response to Defendants’

Motion.1

 After careful consideration, the Court finds the following.

Procedural Background

This action arises out of Plaintiff’s desire to compel adjudication of his application

for naturalization. Plaintiff filed his application with the United States Citizenship and

Immigration Services (hereinafter referred to as “USCIS”) on April 27, 2004, and the

Defendant, USCIS Phoenix District Office has yet to issue a decision. Plaintiff attended his

first interview on the naturalization petition on November 5, 2004. Plaintiff was then

scheduled for a second interview on the naturalization petition for April 12, 2005. Plaintiff

Case 2:06-cv-01004-SMM Document 19 Filed 09/24/07 Page 1 of 4
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 -

contends that pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1447(b), a decision shall be made on all naturalization

cases within 120 days of the naturalization interview (Doc.1). A decision has yet to be issued

regarding Plaintiff’s application for naturalization.

Discussion

Defendants do not dispute that USCIS has not made a decision on Plaintiff’s

naturalization application. However, they assert that there exists a reasonable justification

for such, that USCIS has not completed its consideration of Plaintiff’s application for

naturalization, and that the examination of Plaintiff is not complete. Pursuant to the express

language of 8 U.S.C. § 1446(b), USCIS is authorized to take witness testimony, request

production of documents, and interview the applicant in regards to any matter affecting the

applicant’s eligibility for naturalization. In addition, §1446(a) requires that prior to rendering

a decision, USCIS conduct a personal investigation of the applicant. Thus, USCIS contends

that because it has yet to complete the examination of the Plaintiff, it has been unable to issue

a decision on Plaintiff’s application for naturalization.

Defendants further contend that because the examination has yet to be completed, this

Court does not have jurisdiction over this case. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that

jurisdiction is conferred upon the United States District Court pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b)

by virtue of USCIS’s failure to issue a decision within 120 days of the date of Plaintiff’s

interview (Doc.1). However, the statute actually provides:

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, 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). Thus, it is evident from the Complaint that the Plaintiff misinterprets the

language of 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). Defendants aver and this Court agrees, that the key to

triggering jurisdiction is the “examination,” a term not specifically defined in the statute.

The use of the term “examination” in 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) references 8 U.S.C. § 1446,

Case 2:06-cv-01004-SMM Document 19 Filed 09/24/07 Page 2 of 4
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 Cf. Forbes v. Napolitano, 236 F.3d 1009, 1011 (9th Cir. 2000) (finding that

terms such as “investigation” and “routine examination” were inherently ambiguous in

upholding vagueness challenge to Arizona abortion statute).

- 3 -

which gives more detail about what an “examination” entails. See 8 U.S.C. § 1447(a). The

statute at 8 U.S.C. § 1446(b) discusses the meaning of “examination” as follows:

The Attorney General shall designate employees of the Service to conduct

examinations upon applications for naturalization. For such purposes any such

employee so designated is authorized to take testimony concerning any matter

touching or in any way affecting the admissibility of any applicant for

naturalization, to administer oaths, including the oath of the applicant for

naturalization, and to require by subpoena the attendance and testimony of

witnesses, including applicant, before such employee so designated and the

production of relevant books, papers, and documents, and to that end may

invoke the aid of any district court of the United States; and any such court

may, in the event of neglect or refusal to respond to a subpoena issued by any

such employee so designated or refusal to testify before such employee so

designated issue an order requiring such person to appear before such

employee so designated, produce relevant books, papers, and documents if

demanded, and testify; and any failure to obey such order of the court may be

punished by the court as a contempt thereof.

Defendants point out that the term “examination” in 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) is ambiguous,

because the statute does not require that the examination be a discrete event. USCIS defines

examination as a process of examining the applicant and necessary background materials to

determine whether the applicant has met the standards of naturalization. In considering the

language of 8 U.S.C. § 1447, the Court agrees with Defendants that an ambiguity exists as

to the extent and process under which an “examination” may be conducted.2

Under Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 476 U.S. 837 (1984), a court

must defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute that the agency

is charged with enforcing. Therefore, USCIS’s reasonable interpretation of the statute

regarding the examination process whereby it interprets the word “examination” to include

more than simply the interview of the applicant, is entitled to deference by this Court. The

Court finds that USCIS has taken the reasonable view that the examination is a process which

includes interviews, an investigation, the background check, testimony of witnesses, and

production of documents. See also Danilov, 370 F. Supp. 2d at 444 n. 6. Consequently,

Case 2:06-cv-01004-SMM Document 19 Filed 09/24/07 Page 3 of 4
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 Even assuming this Court had subject matter jurisdiction, this Court,

pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), would remand this case to USCIS to decide the matter

accordingly.

- 4 -

USCIS’s initial interviews to address other requirements for naturalization eligibility, such

as English language, American government, and history proficiency, 8 C.F.R. §§ 312.1-

312.5, did not alone constitute an “examination” for purposes of 1447(b). Furthermore,

USCIS’s interpretation of “examination” is reasonable because the statute specifically

authorizes USCIS to take additional measures as part of their naturalization decision-making

process. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1446(a) & (b).

USCIS has determined that it still needs to conduct another interview of Plaintiff,

request additional documents, and possibly take the testimony of witnesses in order to

conclude its examination of Plaintiff and make a naturalization decision. Therefore, pursuant

to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), the 120-day period has not yet begun to run, and this Court does not

have subject matter jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff’s action.3

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED GRANTING Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or in the

Alternative Remand (Doc. 13).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall terminate this case

accordingly.

DATED this 21st day of September, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01004-SMM Document 19 Filed 09/24/07 Page 4 of 4