Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00341/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00341-0/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 - 07cv0341

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROY JOSEPH,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07cv0341-LAB (LSP)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

REMAND; AND

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

vs.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary,

Department of Homeland Security;

EMILIO T. GONZALEZ, Director,

Citizenship and Immigration Services;

CHRISTINA POULOS, Acting Director,

California Service Center, Citizenship

and Immigration Services; PAUL M.

PIERRE, District Director, San Diego

District, Citizenship and Immigration

Services; ALBERTO GONZALES,

Attorney General of the United States;

ROBERT S. MUELLER, III, Director,

Federal Bureau of Investigation,

Defendants.

Plaintiff, an applicant for naturalization, brought this action to compel the United

States Citizenship and Immigration Service (“USCIS”) to adjudicate his application. Plaintiff

was interviewed by USCIS on May 25, 2006. Because his application was not adjudicated

within 120 days, he now seeks judicial review under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). 

Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction or failure to state a

claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (6); or, in the alternative, to remand to USCIS

Case 3:07-cv-00341-LAB-LSP Document 9 Filed 03/13/08 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 - 07cv0341

for adjudication upon completion of Plaintiff’s background check (the “Motion”). Plaintiff

alleges the adjudication of his application has been unreasonably delayed, but alleges

nothing regarding his background check. He did raise this argument in his opposition to the

Motion. (Opp’n at 6.) His claim, however, rests on solely on the fact that his application was

not adjudicated within 120 days of his interview, or examination.

In addition to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), Plaintiff identifies the Administrative Procedures Act

(“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq.; and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et

seq. as bases for relief. The Court relies primarily on § 1447(b), which requires the agency

to decide a naturalization application within 120 days of the date of a naturalization, and

empowers the district court to “either determine the matter or remand the matter, with

appropriate instructions, to the Service to determine the matter.”

“Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and is available to compel a federal official

to perform a duty only if: (1) the individual's claim is clear and certain; (2) the official's duty

is nondiscretionary, ministerial, and so plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt, and (3)

no other adequate remedy is available.” Kildare v. Saenz, 325 F.3d 1078, 1084 (9th Cir.

2003). “The extraordinary remedy of mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 will issue only to

compel the performance of a clear nondiscretionary duty. ” Pittston Coal Group v. Sebben,

488 U.S. 105, 121 (1988) (international quotation marks and citation omitted). 

The APA authorizes the Court to intervene to compel agency action that has been

unreasonably delayed. 5 U.S.C. § 706(1). While USCIS has discretion in how to adjudicate

an application, it has no discretion regarding whether to adjudicate an application within the

120-day period following the interview. See, e.g., Singh v. Still, 470 F. Supp.2d 1064, 1067

(N.D. Cal. 2007) (noting difference between how the USCIS resolves an application and

whether it resolves an application).

The FBI and USCIS are charged respectively with investigating and adjudicating

naturalization applications. 8 U.S.C. § 1446(a). Congress mandated in 1997 that the FBI

investigate every applicant for naturalization and that CIS await completion of applicants’

background investigations before rendering a decision with respect to any applicant. See

Case 3:07-cv-00341-LAB-LSP Document 9 Filed 03/13/08 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

- 3 - 07cv0341

Pub. L. No. 105-119, Title I, Nov. 26, 1997, 111 Stat. 2448–49. Beginning in fiscal year

1998 and thereafter, the USCIS is prohibited from using any of the funds appropriated or

available to it "unless the [USCIS] has received confirmation from the [FBI] that a full criminal

background check has been completed . . . ." Id. Pursuant to that provision, 8 C.F.R.

§ 335.2 was amended to reflect the need to delay conducting an applicant's initial citizenship

interview until after the FBI completes its investigations. 

Until recently, the USCIS’ San Diego office had acted contrary to the regulation by

conducting initial interviews of applicants for purposes of carrying out the history and English

examination portions of the interview. See Ghazal v. Gonzales, 2007 WL 1971944, slip op.

at *2 (S.D.Cal., June 14, 2007). After the FBI completed an applicant’s background check

USCIS might re-interview the applicant if the background check appeared to warrant it. Id.

The USCIS has now, changed its practice to comply with regulatory requirements. Id.

As a result of the USCIS’ previous practice, some applicants, including Plaintiff, found

themselves in the position of having finished their examinations before the background

check was completed and reported to the USCIS. The Court can exercise jurisdiction over

cases where 120 days have passed since an applicant’s naturalization interview but where

FBI’s background investigation is not yet complete. See United States v. Hovsepian, 359

F.3d 1144, 1164 (9th Cir. 2004) ("Section 1447(b) allows the district court to obtain exclusive

jurisdiction over those naturalization applications on which the INS fails to act within 120

days if the applicant properly invokes the court’s authority"). 

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), the Court may either hold a hearing and decide the matter,

or remand the matter with appropriate instructions to the USCIS for determination.

"Generally speaking, a court . . . should remand a case to an agency for decision of a matter

that statutes place primarily in agency hands." INS v. Orlando Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16

(2002). Neither the USCIS nor the Court is equipped either to conduct the background

check themselves or to decide an application before the FBI completes its background check

to determine whether an applicant presents any national security or public safety risk. See

/ / /

Case 3:07-cv-00341-LAB-LSP Document 9 Filed 03/13/08 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 - 07cv0341

El-Daour v. Chertoff, 417 F. Supp.2d 679, 684 (W.D.Pa., 2005). In this case, the delay is

attributable to the FBI’s delay in completing the background check.

As noted above, the complaint did not allege the background check was taking an

unreasonably long time, but Plaintiff did raise this issue in his opposition to the Motion.

Defendants in reply filed the declaration of Michael Cannon, head of the FBI’s National

Name Check Program Section. Cannon’s declaration outlined the procedures the FBI

follows in conducting a background check and factors affecting delays in conducting

background checks nationwide. (Cannon Decl. filed June 4, 2007, ¶¶ 4–21.) The declaration

states the request for Plaintiff’s background check was received on or around February 14,

2006 and the FBI is in the course of carrying out its duties with respect to Plaintiff’s

background check in accordance with the procedures described. (Id., ¶ 22.) 

While the FBI must conduct background checks, the Court cannot direct the pace at

which the FBI does so. Alzuraiki v. Heinauer, 2008 WL 413861, slip op. at *4 (D.Neb., Feb.

13, 2008) (pointing out the FBI was under no requirement to process plaintiff’s background

check at any particular pace such as could give rise to APA or mandamus jurisdiction).

Provided the FBI is making efforts reasonable under the circumstances, the time within

which it acts is committed to the FBI’s discretion. See Li v. Chertoff, 482 F. Supp.2d 1172,

1178 (S.D.Cal., 2007). 

Plaintiff has alleged no harm, and no egregious or abusive circumstances other than

mere delay. In addition, the Cannon declaration provides a generalized explanation for

delays of this kind. Furthermore, while other courts have drawn different conclusions, this

Court has considered it inequitable to require the FBI to expedite one applicant’s background

check at the expense of all other applicants. See, e.g., Mahdavi v. Chertoff, 2007 WL

474556, slip op. at *3 (S.D.Cal., Oct. 29, 2007) (noting the FBI was experiencing a backlog

of requests for expedited background checks, and concluding “assuming FBI resources

remain constant, no procedural net gain will result and other applications ‘of a higher or

competing priority’ willbe delayed.”)(quoting Telecommunications Research & Action Center

v. F.C.C., 750 F.2d 70, 80 (9th Cir. 1984)). Therefore, even if the complaint had alleged

Case 3:07-cv-00341-LAB-LSP Document 9 Filed 03/13/08 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 - 07cv0341

unreasonable delay in completing the background check, the Court would not find such a

delay unreasonable in this case so as to justify mandamus relief.

When, as here, a delay in the decision results from the FBI's investigative process

and no abusive or egregious circumstances are apparent, the Court finds it appropriate to

remand with instructions rather than attempting to make its own citizenship determination

before the background check is complete. See Ghazal at *3 (citation omitted). To do

otherwise, the Court “would be improvidently bypassing the agency’s expertise in

immigration matters committed in the first instance to the agency.” Lopez v. Ashcroft, 366

F.3d 799, 807 (9th Cir. 2004). 

For these reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Defendants' Motion To Remand is GRANTED.

2. This matter is REMANDED to the USCIS, with instructions that USCIS make

a determination as expeditiously as possible after the completion of Plaintiff’s security and

background investigation.

3. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 13, 2008

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00341-LAB-LSP Document 9 Filed 03/13/08 Page 5 of 5