Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01451/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01451-2/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MOHAMED MUTLAQ NAGI, CASE NO. CV-F-06-1451 LJO SMS

 

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS

vs.

ORDER SCHEDULING TRIAL SETTING

CONFERENCE

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, 

Secretary of Homeland Security, et al, Date: May 7, 2007

Time: 8:45am

Courtroom: 4 (LJO)

Defendants.

 / 

On November 2, 2006, Defendant United States Citizenship and Naturalization Services

(“USCIS”) filed a Motion to Dismiss this action. After Plaintiff Mohamed Mutlaq Nagi (“Nagi”) filed

his response, the Court determined that additional briefing was necessary to consider adequately the

motion. Pursuant to an Order Requiring Further Action From Parties, issued on March 7, 2007, the

parties filed additional briefs. Having considered all arguments, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion

to Dismiss.

MOTION TO DISMISS

This Court has jurisdiction in this action pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1447(b), which reads: 

If there is a failure to make a determination under section 335[8 U.S.C. §1446] before

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

such a 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 a 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.

Under this statute, the Court may either: (a) determine the matter or (b) remand the matter with

appropriate instruction to USCIS to determine the matter.

USCIS does not state under which rule it pursues its motion to dismiss. Instead, in its scant

memorandum of points and authorities, USCIS offers: 

CIS is prepared to deny the application for naturalization....Because CIS is prepared to

Case 1:06-cv-01451-LJO -SMS Document 21 Filed 04/17/07 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

complete adjudication of the application for naturalization, and as well because this

action is duplicative of docket number 06-185, the government asks that the Court

dismiss the case and remand the matter to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

with instructions to adjudicate the application. See 8 U.S.C. §1447(b). (Def. Mot.

Dismiss, 2:11-17)

Simply stating that agency is now prepared to deny the application does not divest this Court of

jurisdiction in this case. Indeed, USCIS may not adjudicate the application while the case is pending

before this Court, because the Court now holds exclusive jurisdiction in this matter. See United States

v. Hovsepian, 359 F.3d 1144 (9 Cir. 2004); Zaranska v. U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, 400 F. Supp. th

2d 500 (E.D. NY 2005). In the absence of authority or argument for its motion, this Court DENIES

USCIS’ motion to dismiss. 

MOTION TO REMAND

In its motion to dismiss, USCIS requests the Court to “remand the matter...with instructions to

adjudicate the application.” Def. Mot. Dismiss, 2:15-17. Were the Court inclined to construe the instant

motion as an alternative motion to remand, that motion would also be denied. According to a

declaration presented as part of this motion, USCIS admits that the initial examination took place on

August 28, 2000. Decl. Darvin L. Weirich, ¶ 7 (Doc. 17-2). Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1447(b), Nagi may

bring an action before this Court if USCIS fails to make a determination within 120 days of that August

2000 examination. At this time, Nagi’s application has been pending for more than six-and-a-half years.

The amount of time that has passed between the initial examination and the adjudication of the

application is neither explainable nor excusable. 

TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE

This Court sets a scheduling conference for May 7, 2007 at 8:45 AM in Courtroom 4 (LJO). The

parties may appear telephonically by arranging a one-line call and calling (559) 499-5680. A Joint

Scheduling Conference Report is due by April 30, 3007 and should be sent in WordPerfect format to

ljoorders@caed.uscourts.gov. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 17, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01451-LJO -SMS Document 21 Filed 04/17/07 Page 2 of 2