Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01478/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01478-1/pdf.json

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

---

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 This matter was determined to be suitable for decision without *

oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHAD GIANNI, )

) 2:07-CV-1478-GEB-KJM

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER*

)

SUSAN CURDA, Office in Charge, )

Sacramento Office, U.S. Citizenship)

and Immigration Services; EMILIO T.)

GONZALEZ, Director, Bureau of )

Citizenship and Immigration )

Services, U.S. Department of )

Homeland Security; MICHAEL )

CHERTOFF, U.S. Secretary of )

Homeland Security; ALBERTO )

GONZALEZ, U.S. Attorney General; )

ROBERT S. MUELLER, III, Director )

of the Federal Bureau of )

Investigation, )

)

Defendants. )

)

Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint under

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rules”) 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6),

arguing this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review

Defendants’ processing of Plaintiff’s application for adjustment of

Case 2:07-cv-01478-GEB -KJM Document 19 Filed 02/19/08 Page 1 of 5
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

his alien status in the United States to permanent residency and that

Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a cognizable claim. Plaintiff

opposes the motion.

Plaintiff was granted asylum in the United States on July

26, 2001; on or about May 27, 2004, he applied for adjustment of his

status to permanent residency by submitting a Form I-485 (“I-485

application”) to the United States Citizenship and Immigration

Services (“USCIS”), which is part of the Department of Homeland

Security. (Pl.’s Compl. ¶ 11.) USCIS is still processing Plaintiff’s

application. His Complaint seeks a declaratory judgment that

Defendants’ delay in processing Plaintiff’s I-485 application has been

unreasonable, and an order under the Mandamus Act and the

Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) that would compel Defendants to

adjudicate his application within 60 days. Defendants argue 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) precludes judicial review of the pace at which

USCIS processes Plaintiff’s I-485 application, and that Plaintiff’s

claim is not cognizable under either the Mandamus Act or the APA. 

(Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss (“Mot.”) at 5:19-21; 6:9-12:14.)

I. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)

Defendants contend dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint is

appropriate under Rule 12(b)(1), arguing USCIS has discretion in

processing I-485 applications under the Immigration and Nationality

Act (“INA”), and therefore § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), which precludes review

of discretionary actions taken under the INA, divests this Court of

subject matter jurisdiction to review the pace at which USCIS

processes Plaintiff’s I-485 application. (Id. at 5:19-21.) I-485

applications are processed under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a), which provides: 

“The status of an alien . . . may be adjusted by the Attorney General,

Case 2:07-cv-01478-GEB -KJM Document 19 Filed 02/19/08 Page 2 of 5
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

“[T]he authority over [§ 1255(a)] adjudications has been 1

transferred to the Secretary of Homeland Security and the USCIS.” Pool

v. Gonzales, 2007 WL 1613272, at *1 (D.N.J. June 1, 2007). 

3

in his discretion and under such regulations as he may prescribe, to

that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence[.]” 8 1

U.S.C. § 1255(a) (emphasis added). Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)

provides: “[N]o court shall have jurisdiction to review . . . any

other decision or action of the Attorney General or the Secretary of

Homeland Security the authority for which is specified under this

subchapter to be in the discretion of the Attorney General or the

Secretary of Homeland Security.” Id. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) (emphasis

added).

Defendants argue that the word “action” in 

§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) “refers to an ongoing process or a series of

acts,” and therefore the pace at which USCIS processes I-485

applications constitutes a discretionary “action” that cannot be

reviewed. (Mot. at 5:10-11.) However, as the Seventh Circuit has

held, “by its use of the terms . . . ‘decision or action,’ 

[§ 1252(a)(2)(B)] only bars review of actual discretionary decisions

to grant or deny relief” under the INA. Iddir v. INS, 301 F.3d 492,

496 (7th Cir. 2002). Since Plaintiff challenges only how long USCIS

has taken to process his I-485 application, Defendants have failed to

show that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) divests this Court of jurisdiction;

therefore, their motion on this ground is denied.

II. The Mandamus Act and the APA

Defendants also seek dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint

under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing it does not state a cognizable claim

under either the Mandamus Act or the APA since Defendants do not have

Case 2:07-cv-01478-GEB -KJM Document 19 Filed 02/19/08 Page 3 of 5
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

a non-discretionary duty to process Plaintiff’s I-485 application. 

(Mot. at 6:9-12:14.)

Both the Mandamus Act and the APA provide relief only where

the government has a non-discretionary duty to act. See Heckler v.

Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 616 (1984) (stating that the Mandamus Act

provides relief “only if the defendant owes [the plaintiff] a clear

nondiscretionary duty”); Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542

U.S. 55, 64 (2004) (holding that the APA “empowers a court only to

compel an agency ‘to perform a ministerial or non-discretionary act’ 

. . . .”) (quoting Attorney General’s Manual on the Administrative

Procedure Act 108 (1947)). 

Defendants argue that USCIS does not have a nondiscretionary duty to process Plaintiff’s I-485 application since

“neither the conduct of the investigation nor the adjudicative process

are merely ministerial.” (Mot. at 7:19-20.) Plaintiff counters that

8 C.F.R. § 245.2(a)(5)(i), which provides that an I-485 applicant

“shall be notified of the decision of the director and, if the [I-485]

application is denied, the reasons for denial,” gives USCIS a nondiscretionary duty to process I-485 applications and to reach a

decision. (Pl.’s Opp’n at 6:15-20 (emphasis added).) “[The] duty to

process I-485 applications under § 1255 is non-discretionary.” Liu v.

Chertoff, 2007 WL 2433337, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2007) (emphasis

in original); see Dong v. Chertoff, 513 F. Supp. 2d 1158, 1165 (N.D.

Cal. 2007) (stating “there exists a non-discretionary duty to act on

and process the application”). Therefore, Defendants do not prevail

on this portion of their motion.

Defendants also seek dismissal of Plaintiff’s APA claim,

arguing it is not cognizable since no statutory provisions provide a

Case 2:07-cv-01478-GEB -KJM Document 19 Filed 02/19/08 Page 4 of 5
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

“meaningful standard” against which to measure the pace at which USCIS

processes I-485 applications. (Mot. at 11:9-10:11.) However, “where

a statute does not specify a deadline for a particular kind of

government action, the APA compels the executive agency to act ‘within

a reasonable time.’” Razaq v. Poulos, 2007 WL 61884, at *4 (N.D. Cal.

Jan. 8, 2007).

Therefore, Defendants’ dismissal motion is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 19, 2008

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:07-cv-01478-GEB -KJM Document 19 Filed 02/19/08 Page 5 of 5