Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-07878/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-07878-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAN YU and KEMING MU,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary of the

Department of Homeland Security;

EMILIO T. GONZALEZ, Director, U.S.

Citizenship and Immigration Services;

CHRISTINA POULOS, Director,

California Service Center,

U.S.C.I.S.; ROBERT S. MUELLER,

Director, Federal Bureau of

Investigations,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 06-7878 CW

ORDER DENYING

DEFENDANTS' MOTION

TO DISMISS

Plaintiffs Lan Yu and Keming Mu have filed a complaint,

seeking a writ of mandamus compelling Defendants to adjudicate

their I-485 applications for adjustment to lawful permanent

resident status. Defendants move to dismiss the action pursuant to

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Plaintiffs

oppose the motion. The matter was heard on May 11, 2007. Having

considered all of the papers filed by the parties and oral argument

Case 4:06-cv-07878-CW Document 20 Filed 06/14/07 Page 1 of 7
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

Plaintiff Mu's name check was completed in January, 2007. 

However, his I-485 application is based on his marriage to Yu. 

Therefore, his application cannot be adjudicated independently.

2

on the matter, the Court denies Defendants' motion.

BACKGROUND

On March 15, 2005, Plaintiffs filed with the California

Service Center of the United States Citizenship and Immigration

Services (USCIS) I-485 applications to adjust their status to

lawful permanent residents. These applications were based on the

concurrent I-140 petition for alien worker filed by Yu's employer. 

Yu's I-140 was approved on June 9, 2005. The parties agree that

the only remaining step in the adjudication of their I-485

applications is the completion of an FBI name check for Plaintiff

Yu.1 

On December 26, 2006, twenty-one months after they filed their

I-485 applications, Plaintiffs filed their complaint, alleging that

Defendants are violating the Administrative Procedures Act (APA),

by "unlawfully withholding or unreasonably delaying action on

Plaintiffs I-485 applications" and seeking a writ of mandamus,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361, to compel the completion of their FBI

security checks and "to expeditiously process both of Plaintiffs'

I-485 Applications to conclusion." Complaint ¶¶ 16, 17(b).

Defendants now move to dismiss the action, arguing that the

Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to grant Plaintiffs'

request for a writ of mandamus and that Plaintiffs fail to state a

claim under the APA. 

Case 4:06-cv-07878-CW Document 20 Filed 06/14/07 Page 2 of 7
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

DISCUSSION

I. Mandamus

Dismissal is appropriate under Rule 12(b)(1) when the district

court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claim. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 12(b)(1). Federal subject matter jurisdiction must exist

at the time the action is commenced. Morongo Band of Mission

Indians v. Cal. State Bd. of Equalization, 858 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th

Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1006 (1989). A Rule 12(b)(1)

motion may either attack the sufficiency of the pleadings to

establish federal jurisdiction, or allege an actual lack of

jurisdiction which exists despite the formal sufficiency of the

complaint. Thornhill Publ’g Co. v. Gen. Tel. & Elecs. Corp., 594

F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir. 1979); Roberts v. Corrothers, 812 F.2d

1173, 1177 (9th Cir. 1987).

Subject matter jurisdiction is a threshold issue which goes to

the power of the court to hear the case. Therefore, a Rule

12(b)(1) challenge should be decided before other grounds for

dismissal, because they will become moot if dismissal is granted. 

Alvares v. Erickson, 514 F.2d 156, 160 (9th Cir.), cert. denied,

423 U.S. 874 (1975). A federal court is presumed to lack subject

matter jurisdiction until the contrary affirmatively appears. 

Stock West, Inc. v. Confederated Tribes, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th

Cir. 1989). 

The federal mandamus statute provides, "The district courts

shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of

mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or

any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff." 28

Case 4:06-cv-07878-CW Document 20 Filed 06/14/07 Page 3 of 7
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 4

U.S.C. § 1361. Mandamus relief is only available to compel an

officer of the United States to perform a duty if: (1) the

plaintiff's claim is clear and certain; (2) the duty of the officer

is ministerial and so plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt;

and (3) no other adequate remedy is available. See Fallini v.

Hodel, 783 F.2d 1343, 1345 (9th Cir. 1986) (citations omitted). 

Defendants argue that the Court lacks subject matter

jurisdiction over the petition because "adjustment of status is

committed to the Attorney General's discretion as a matter of law." 

Motion to Dismiss at 3. Defendants cite 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a), which

provides, "The status of an alien who was inspected and admitted or

paroled into the United States . . . may be adjusted by the

Attorney General, in his discretion and under such regulations as

he may prescribe, to that of an alien lawfully admitted for

permanent residence." Further, they note that the regulations for

adjustment of status procedures do not specify any time frames. 

See 8 C.F.R. § 245 et seq.

Plaintiffs counter that although the USCIS has discretion in

adjudicating the applications, it has a non-discretionary duty to

process the application. As the court in Singh v. Still, 470 F.

Supp. 1064, 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2007), noted, "there is a difference

between the [USCIS's] discretion over how to resolve the

application and the [USCIS's] discretion over whether it resolves

an application." Although some courts have found that the speed

with which the USCIS adjudicates I-485 applications is

discretionary and not subject to judicial review, see, e.g.,

Grinberg v. Swacina, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19684 (S.D. Fla.);

Case 4:06-cv-07878-CW Document 20 Filed 06/14/07 Page 4 of 7
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 5

Safadi v. Howard, 466 F. Supp. 2d 696, 698-700 (E.D. Va. 2006),

many, including courts in this district, have found jurisdiction

under the mandamus statute. See, e.g., Singh v. Still, 470 F.

Supp. 2d 1064 (N.D. Cal. 2007); Tjin-A-Tam v. United States Dep't

Homeland Sec., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17994 (S.D. Fla.); Salehian v.

Novak, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77028 (D. Conn. 2006); Fu v. Reno,

2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16110 (N.D. Tex. 2000); Yu v. Brown, 36 F.

Supp. 2d 922, 931-32 (D.N.M. 1999); Paunescu v. INS, 76 F. Supp. 2d

896, 901-02 (D. Ill. 1999). 

The Supreme Court has held that where, as here, "the duty in a

particular situation is so plainly prescribed as to be free from

doubt and equivalent to a positive command, it is regarded as being

so far ministerial that its performance may be compelled by

mandamus." Wilbur v. United States, 281 U.S. 206, 218-19 (1930). 

Courts have interpreted 8 C.F.R. § 245.2(a)(5), which provides,

"The applicant shall be notified of the decision of the director

and, if the application is denied, the reasons for the denial," to

imply that USCIS has a duty to process I-485 applications to

decision. See, e.g., Singh, 470 F. Supp. 2d at 1067 n. 6. 

Further, the government has conceded in at least two cases that it

has a nondiscretionary duty to process I-485 applications under 8

U.S.C. § 1255(a). See Gelfer v. Chertoff, 2007 WL 902382 (N.D.

Cal.); Singh, 470 F. Supp. 2d at 1067.

Consistent with this duty to process I-485 applications, the

Court finds that Plaintiffs have a right to have their applications

processed without unreasonable delay. The APA provides, "With due

regard for the convenience and necessity of the parties or their

Case 4:06-cv-07878-CW Document 20 Filed 06/14/07 Page 5 of 7
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 6

representatives and within a reasonable time, each agency shall

proceed to conclude a matter presented to it." 5 U.S.C. § 555(b). 

As explained in Yu, "Although neither statute specifies a time by

which an adjudication should be made, we believe that by necessary

implication the adjudication must occur within a reasonable time. 

A contrary position would permit the INS to delay indefinitely. 

Congress could not have intended to authorize potentially

interminable delays." 36 F. Supp. at 932.

Defendants do not dispute Plaintiffs' allegation that they

have exhausted their administrative remedies and do not argue that

they have any other adequate remedy. Therefore, the Court finds

that it has jurisdiction to consider Plaintiffs' petition for

mandamus. Defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1)

is denied.

II. Administrative Procedures Act

A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim will be

denied unless it is “clear that no relief could be granted under

any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the

allegations.” Falkowski v. Imation Corp., 309 F.3d 1123, 1132 (9th

Cir. 2002), citing Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506

(2002). All material allegations in the complaint will be taken as

true and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. 

NL Indus., Inc. v. Kaplan, 792 F.2d 896, 898 (9th Cir. 1986). 

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under

the APA. However, the APA provides that federal courts can "compel

agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed." 5

U.S.C. § 706(1). As stated above, the APA further provides that

Case 4:06-cv-07878-CW Document 20 Filed 06/14/07 Page 6 of 7
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 7

agencies must conclude matters before them "within a reasonable

time." 5 U.S.C. § 555(b). In Norton v. South Utah Wilderness

Alliance, 542 U.S. 55, 64 (2004), the Supreme Court held that a

plaintiff states a claim for relief under § 706(1) when it "asserts

that an agency failed to take a discrete agency action that it is

required to take." As discussed above, Plaintiffs have

demonstrated that USCIS has a nondiscretionary duty to process 

I-485 applications. Further, Plaintiffs have alleged that USCIS

has failed to do so within a reasonable time. Therefore,

Defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is denied. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion to dismiss is

DENIED. (Docket No. 7).

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6/14/07

Dated: ________________________ 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-07878-CW Document 20 Filed 06/14/07 Page 7 of 7