Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01933/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01933-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 462
Nature of Suit: Naturalization, Petition For Hearing of Denial
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PHONG THI VU, CUC THI

TRUONG, HONG XUAN BUI, HUE

THI NGUYEN,

Petitioners,

CASE NO. 12CV1933 JLS (BLM) 

ORDER (1) GRANTING MOTION

TO DISMISS COMPLAINT AS

MOOT; AND (2) DENYING

MOTION TO AMEND

COMPLAINT

(ECF Nos. 12, 26) 

vs.

ALEJANDRO N. MAYORKAS,

DOES 1-10, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND

IMMIGRATION SERVICE,

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

SECURITY

Respondents.

Petitioners Phong Thi Vu (“Vu”), Cuc Thi Truong (“Truong”), Hong Xuan Bui

(“Bui”), and Hue Thi Nguyen’s (“Nyugen,” and collectively, “Petitioners”) bring this

action for a writ of mandamus to compel U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

(“USCIS”) to process their applications for naturalization. Petitioners filed this suit on

August 6, 2012. Less than three months later, on October 29, 2012, USCIS denied

Petitioners’ naturalization applications. Respondents Alejandro N. Mayorkas, USCIS,

and the Department of Homeland Security (collectively, “the Government”) then moved

to dismiss Petitioners’ complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that this

case is moot because Petitioners obtained the only remedy that they sought in their

complaint. Petitioners subsequently moved for leave to file an amended complaint to

- 1 - 12cv1933 

Case 3:12-cv-01933-JLS-BLM Document 34 Filed 05/30/13 Page 1 of 11
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

invoke this Court’s exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate their naturalization applications

pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), as well as to raise constitutional and statutory

challenges to USCIS policies and practices.

Presently before the Court are the Government’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint

as Moot, (Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 12), and Petitioners’ Motion to Amend Complaint

(Mot. to Amend, ECF No. 26). Also before the Court are the associated oppositions

and replies. (Resp. in Opp’n to Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No.24; Reply in Supp. of Mot.

to Dismiss, ECF No. 27; Resp. in Opp’n to Mot. to Amend, ECF No. 28; Reply in Supp.

of Mot. to Amend, ECF No. 32). The motion hearings set for March 14, 2013 and April

4, 2013, respectively, were vacated and the matters taken under submission on the

papers pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). Having considered the parties’

arguments and the law, the Court GRANTS the Government’s motion to dismiss and

DENIES Petitioners’ motion for leave to amend. 

BACKGROUND 

 Petitioner Vu is a citizen of Vietnam and has been a lawful permanent resident

of the United States since November 16, 1990. On May 14, 2010, Vu filed an

application for naturalization with USCIS. At the time she filed her application, Vu

also filed a Form N-648, “Medical Certification for Disability Exception,” seeking an

exception to the English language and U.S. history and civics requirements for

naturalization prescribed by 8 U.S.C. § 1423. Vu appeared for an initial interview with

USCIS on August 4, 2010. At the interview, the USCIS officer determined that Vu’s

Form N-648 was incomplete and rejected her request for a medical waiver. A second

interview was held on October 18, 2010 and Vu submitted a second Form N-648 at this

time. The USCIS officer again rejected the request on the ground that it was

inconsistent with Vu’s testimony regarding her disabilities. A third and final interview

was held on January 3, 2011. The USCIS officer attempted to place Vu under oath and

to conduct the English language and U.S. history and civics portions of the

naturalization exam. Vu was unable to understand, or respond to, the USCIS officer in

- 2 - 12cv1933 

Case 3:12-cv-01933-JLS-BLM Document 34 Filed 05/30/13 Page 2 of 11
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

English and therefore failed to meet these requirements. Vu subsequently requested to

withdraw her naturalization application. 

Petitioner Truong is also a citizen of Vietnam and a lawful permanent resident

of the United States. Truong filed a naturalization application on April 14, 2010, and

appeared at an initial interview with USCIS on July 16, 2010. At her interview, Truong

submitted a Form N-648, which the USCIS officer rejected as incomplete and

inadequate. Truong was administered the English language and U.S. history and civics

portions of the naturalization exam, but she was unable to respond to the USCIS officer

in English and thus did not pass. On August 25, 2010, Truong submitted a second Form

N-648, which USCIS also rejected. A second interview was scheduled for Truong on

October 14, 2010, but she did not appear. 

Petitioner Nguyen is also a citizen of Vietnam and a lawful permanent resident

of the United States. Nguyen submitted a naturalization application on November 8,

2010. At her initial interview with USCIS on March 10, 2011, Nguyen submitted a

Form N-648, which USCIS rejected as incomplete and inadequate. Nguyen was

administered the English language and U.S. history and civics portion of the

naturalization exam, but she was unable to understand, or respond to, the USCIS officer

in English and consequently failed the exam. Nguyen appeared for a second interview

with USCIS on May 10, 2011, and submitted a second Form N-648, which USCIS also

rejected. Ngyuen was administered the exam for a second time and again failed to pass.

Petitioner Bui is also a Vietnamese citizen and lawful permanent resident of the

United States. Bui filed an application for naturalization on November 11, 2010, and

appeared for an interview with USCIS on March 10, 2011. At his interview, he

presented a Form N-648, which USCIS rejected as incomplete and inadequate. USCIS

provided Bui with a second interview, on May 10, 2011, at which time Bui submitted

a second Form N-648. Bui’s N-648 request was again rejected and the USCIS officer

proceeded to administer the English language and U.S. history and civics portion of the

naturalization exam to Bui. Bui was unable to understand or respond to the USCIS

- 3 - 12cv1933 

Case 3:12-cv-01933-JLS-BLM Document 34 Filed 05/30/13 Page 3 of 11
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

officer in English and thus failed to pass the exam. 

On August 6, 2012, Petitioners filed suit in this Court. (Compl., ECF No. 1). 

Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus compelling USCIS to adjudicate their

naturalization applications. (Id. at ¶ 1). Petitioners invoked the Court’s subject matter

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the statutory grant of federal question jurisdiction,

as well as 28 U.S.C. § 1361, the mandamus statute. (Id. at ¶ 5). Petitioners sought

relief under the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment, 8

U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., the Immigration and Nationality Act, as well as 28 U.S.C. §

2201, the Declaratory Judgment Act, and 28 U.S.C. § 1651, the All Writs Act. (Id. at

¶ 6).

On October 29, 2012, USCIS denied Petitioners’ applications, citing Petitioners’

inability to meet the educational requirements for naturalization or to provide complete

and adequate N-648 waivers exempting them from those requirements. (See Exs. A-D,

Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 12). Petitioners appealed the denial of their applications by

requesting a hearing before a USCIS officer, as provided by 8 U.S.C. § 1447(a) and 8

C.F.R. § 336.2. (Ex. A, Resp. in Opp’n to Mot. to Amend, ECF No. 28). Vu’s appeal

was received by USCIS on December 3, 2012, and she attended a biometrics

appointment at USCIS on February 27, 2013. (Id. at ¶ 2). Truong’s appeal was

received by USCIS on December 6, 2012 and she also attended a biometrics

appointment on February 27, 2013. (Id. at ¶ 3). USCIS received Nguyen’s and Bui’s

appeals on February 14, 2013. (Id. at ¶¶ 4–5). All four appeals are currently pending

with USCIS. (Id. at ¶ 6). 

On January 3, 2013, in light of USCIS’s denial of Petitioners’ naturalization

applications, the Government filed the motion to dismiss currently before the Court. 

(Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 12). On February 25, 2013, Petitioners filed an amended

complaint, requesting that this Court review their naturalization applications de novo

pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), challenging USCIS’s practices with respect to the

handling of N-648 requests for medical waiver, and also seeking to enjoin USCIS from

- 4 - 12cv1933 

Case 3:12-cv-01933-JLS-BLM Document 34 Filed 05/30/13 Page 4 of 11
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

proceeding with Vu and Truong’s February 27, 2013 appointments. On February 26,

2013, the Court denied the request for injunctive relief and—because the amended

complaint was filed without leave of the Court in violation of Rule 15(a)(2)—struck the

amended complaint from the docket. (Order, ECF No. 25). On February 27, 2013,

Petitioners filed the motion for leave to amend the complaint that is currently before the

Court. (Mot. to Amend, ECF No. 26). 

DISCUSSION 

1. Motion to Dismiss

The Government moves to dismiss Petitioners’ complaint on the ground that this

case is moot and no longer presents a justiciable case or controversy. (Mot. to Dismiss

1, ECF No. 12). According to the Government, USCIS adjudicated and denied

Petitioners naturalization applications on October 29, 2012 and thus effectively

provided Petitioners with the relief that they sought in their complaint. (Id.) 

Petitioners contend, however, that their proposed amended complaint cures any

jurisdictional defect by explicitly requesting that this Court exercise its exclusive

jurisdiction to adjudicate their naturalization applications under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b),

which provides for judicial intervention in the naturalization process when USCIS fails

to act on an application within 120 days. (Resp. in Opp’n to Mot. to Dismiss 3, ECF

No. 24). Petitioners also contend that their amended complaint raises constitutional and

statutory challenges to USCIS’s evaluation of medical waiver requests that this Court

has jurisdiction to entertain pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1331. (Id. at 19–21). After

providing an overview of the naturalization process, the Court proceeds to consider

each of Petitioners’ arguments in turn. 

A. Overview of the Naturalization Process

In general, an alien is eligible to apply for naturalization if he meets the following

criteria, established by statute and regulation: (1) be at least 18 years of age; (2) have

been lawfully admitted as a permanent resident of the United States; (3) have resided

continuously within the United States for a period of at least five years after having

- 5 - 12cv1933 

Case 3:12-cv-01933-JLS-BLM Document 34 Filed 05/30/13 Page 5 of 11
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

been lawfully admitted for permanent residence; (4) have been physically present in the

United States for at least 30 months of the five years preceding the date of filing the

application; (5) immediately preceding the filing of an application, have resided for at

least three months in a State having jurisdiction over the applicant’s actual place of

residence; (6) have resided continuously within the United States from the date of

application for naturalization up to the time of admission to citizenship; (7) have been

and continue to be a person of good moral character, attached to the principles of the

Constitution of the United States, and favorably disposed toward the good order and

happiness of the United States. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1427, 1445; 8 C.F.R. § 316.2. In

addition, applicants for naturalization typically “must demonstrate an understanding of

the English language, including the ability to read, write, and speak words in ordinary

usage.” Sawan v. Chertoff, Civil Action No. H-08-1550, 2008 WL 3852475 at *2 (S.D.

Tex. August 14, 2008) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1423(a)(1)). Applicants must also usually

“demonstrate a knowledge and understanding of the fundamentals of United States

history, and of the principles and form of the United States government.” Id. (citing 8

U.S.C. § 1423(a)(2)). 

An applicant initiates the administrative naturalization process by submitting an

application for naturalization, known as a Form N-400. 8 C.F.R. § 334.2. Next, the

applicant must undergo an investigation, which includes a criminal background check

conducted by USCIS in cooperation with federal law enforcement authorities. § 335.1. 

Once the investigation is complete, the applicant must attend an interview with a USCIS

officer that usually includes an oral examination that tests the applicant’s English

literacy and knowledge of U.S. history and government. § 335.2. Finally, if USCIS

grants the application, the applicant takes an oath of allegiance to the United States. §

337.1. Once the oath has been administered, USCIS provides the applicant with his

certificate of naturalization. § 338.1.

/// 

///

- 6 - 12cv1933 

Case 3:12-cv-01933-JLS-BLM Document 34 Filed 05/30/13 Page 6 of 11
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

B. Jurisdiction to Review Petitioners’ Naturalization Applications De Novo

“Judicial review in the area of immigration ‘is narrowly circumscribed.’” Li v.

INS, No. 00 Civ. 7868, 2003 WL 102813 at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2003) (quoting

Langer v. McElroy, No. 00 Civ. 2741 (RWS), 2002 WL 31789757 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 13,

2002)). There are only “‘two specific points at which a district court may intervene in

the naturalization process.’” Id. (quoting Langer, 2002 WL 31789757 at *2). First, 8

U.S.C. § 1447(b) provides that if USCIS fails to adjudicate a naturalization application

within 120 days, the applicant may apply to the district court in the district in which he

resides to conduct a de novo hearing on the application. See Walji v. Gonzales, 500

F.3d 432, 436–48 (5th Cir. 2007) (holding that the 120-day period runs from the date

of the applicant’s initial interview with USCIS). The district court may then adjudicate

the application itself or remand the matter to USCIS with specific instructions. 8 U.S.C.

§ 1447(b). Second, if USCIS denies a naturalization application, and “that denial is

confirmed after an administrative appeal consisting of a hearing before a . . . [USCIS]

officer . . . [then] the disappointed applicant may seek de novo judicial review in the

United States district court for the district in which he resides.” Langer, 2002 WL

31789757 at *2.

(1) Judicial Review of USCIS Inaction Pursuant to § 1447(b) 

The Ninth Circuit has held that, when an applicant for naturalization seeks

judicial review pursuant to § 1447(b) when USCIS has failed to adjudicate his

application within 120 days, the district court’s jurisdiction is exclusive. U.S. v.

Hovsepian, 359 F.3d 1144, 1159 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Bustamante v. Napolitano,

582 F.3d 403, 406 (2nd Cir. 2009); Etape v. Chertoff, 497 F.3d 379, 383–84 (4th Cir.

2007). Accordingly, once a naturalization applicant seeks review under § 1447(b),

USCIS is stripped of jurisdiction and any subsequent decision by USCIS regarding the

application is invalid. Id. at 1161. 

Nonetheless, in U.S. v. Hovsepian, the Ninth Circuit made clear that exclusive

jurisdiction under § 1447(b) vests with the district court only when a petitioner

- 7 - 12cv1933 

Case 3:12-cv-01933-JLS-BLM Document 34 Filed 05/30/13 Page 7 of 11
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

“properly invokes” the Court’s authority by “[asking] the district court itself to review

the naturalization application[] de novo . . . .” Id.; see also Pichardo-Martinez v.

Ashcroft, 399 F. Supp. 2d 1043, 1046 (D. Ariz. 2005). In Hovsepian, the court

distinguished Sze v. INS, 153 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 1998), in which petitioners filed a writ

of mandamus asking the court to require the INS to “act faster” on naturalization

applications, but never asked the district court itself to decide the applications. 

Hovsepian, 359 F.3d at 1161. The court in Sze properly dismissed petitioners’ claims

as moot because the only requested relief was agency action and the agency acted on

the applications while the case was pending. Id. Hovsepian therefore indicates that a

district court does not acquire exclusive jurisdiction over a naturalization application

when a petitioner requests only that USCIS speed up its processing of the application,

but fails to ask the court itself to adjudicate the application. Id.; see also PichardoMartinez, 399 F. Supp. 2d at 1046. 

Here, Petitioners argue that their amended complaint explicitly calls for this

Court to decide their naturalization applications and thus properly invokes this Court’s

exclusive jurisdiction under § 1447(b), rendering invalid USCIS’s denial of their

applications. (Resp. in Opp’n to Mot. to Dismiss 15–16, ECF No. 24). Petitioners’

argument fails, however, because their original complaint sought a writ of mandamus

requiring USCIS to act faster, and did not request that this Court adjudicate their

naturalization applications.1

 (Compl. 1, ECF No. 1). Petitioners’ August 6, 2012

complaint did not vest this Court with exclusive jurisdiction and therefore USCIS

retained jurisdiction to deny the applications on October 29, 2012. Petitioners cannot

retroactively strip USCIS of its jurisdiction by amending their complaint at this late

1

 Petitioners argue that their original complaint did invoke the Court’s exclusive

jurisdiction under § 1447(b) because it asserted jurisdiction arising under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101, et seq. (Reply in Supp. of Mot. to Amend 2–3, ECF No. 32). This general appeal to jurisdiction based on the immigration statutes does not vest the Court with exclusive jurisdiction, however; the critical inquiry is whether petitioners asked the Court to decide the naturalization applications de novo. See Hovsepian, 359 F.3d at 1161. Here, Petitioners’ original complaint did not include such a request. (Compl., ECF No. 1). 

- 8 - 12cv1933 

Case 3:12-cv-01933-JLS-BLM Document 34 Filed 05/30/13 Page 8 of 11
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

date. 

Accordingly, Petitioners’ original claims seeking USCIS action are rendered

moot by USCIS’s binding adjudication of their naturalization applications. See

Hovsepian, 359 F.3d at 1161. This Court also lacks jurisdiction to review Petitioners’

applications under § 1447(b), as Petitioners demand in their proposed amended

complaint, because that provision is now inapplicable in light of USCIS’s valid denial. 

(2) Judicial Review of USCIS Denial of a Naturalization Application Under § 1421(c)

Section 1421(c) permits a court to review de novo USCIS’s denial of a

naturalization application. Such review is only available, however, when the denial is

confirmed after an administrative appeal. See Kasica v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland

Security, Citizenship and Immigration Services, 660 F. Supp. 2d 277, 280 (D. Conn.

2009) (“The administrative hearing described in § 1447(a) is treated as a statutory

exhaustion requirement and is a prerequisite to subject matter jurisdiction in district

court.”) (citations omitted). 

Here, Petitioners filed administrative appeals with USCIS, (see Ex. A, Resp. in

Opp’n to Mot. to Amend, ECF No. 28), but have yet to receive a final determination

from the agency, such that de novo review under § 1421(c) would be premature. In

sum, Petitioners’ applications are languishing at a specific step in the administrative

naturalization process during which judicial review is temporarily unavailable. The

statutory and regulatory framework governing naturalization prescribes this brief

reviewability gap and Petitioners may not circumvent the statutory scheme. See Kasica,

660 F. Supp. 2d at 283. Accordingly, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to

engage in the de novo review that Petitioners request in their proposed amended

complaint. 

C. Jurisdiction to Review Petitioners’ Constitutional and Statutory Challenges to

USCIS’s Handling of Medical Waiver Applications 

Petitioners also argue that this Court has jurisdiction to review claims in their

proposed amended complaint that assert constitutional and statutory challenges to

- 9 - 12cv1933 

Case 3:12-cv-01933-JLS-BLM Document 34 Filed 05/30/13 Page 9 of 11
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

USCIS’s handling of requests for medical exception to the English language and U.S.

history and civics portion of the naturalization exam. (Resp. in Opp’n to Mot. to

Dismiss 19–21, ECF No. 24). Petitioners’ proposed amended complaint alleges that

USCIS’s policy of denying properly completed requests for medical waiver violates the

Fifth Amendment’s Due Process clause, the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§

553, 555(e), 701 et seq., and the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552. 

(Proposed First Am. Compl. ¶¶ 22–23, ECF No. 26-3). 

Petitioners rely on McNary v. Haitian Refugee Center, Inc., 498 U.S. 479 (1991),

to support their position, arguing that a district court has jurisdiction to hear

constitutional and statutory challenges to immigration procedures, regardless of limits

on judicial review prescribed by existing immigration statutes and regulations. (Resp.

in Opp’n to Mot. to Dismiss 19–20, ECF No. 24). McNary is distinguishable, however. 

In that case, it was necessary for a court to have jurisdiction, otherwise the plaintiffs

“would not as a practical matter be able to obtain meaningful judicial review of their

application denials or their objections to INS procedures.” Kasica, 660 F. Supp. 2d at

281. “Judicial review of naturalization determinations is entirely different. District

courts have plenary authority to review naturalization proceedings, so long as an

unsuccessful applicant first exhausts his . . . administrative remedies.” Id.

Moreover, as the Government argues, Petitioners’ challenge to USCIS procedures

for dealing with medical waiver requests is premature. (Resp. in Opp’n to Mot. to

Amend 4, ECF No. 28). Petitioners cannot bring a constitutional or statutory challenge

to the process accorded by USCIS before availing themselves of that process. See

Kasica, 660 F. Supp. 2d at 281. Should USCIS deny Petitioners’ administrative

appeals, only then may Petitioners seek judicial review of their constitutional and

statutory claims pursuant to § 1421(c). Thus, the Court agrees with the Government

that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking to entertain any of the claims asserted by

Petitioners, either in the original or the proposed amended complaint. Accordingly, the

Court GRANTS the Government’s motion to dismiss. 

- 10 - 12cv1933 

Case 3:12-cv-01933-JLS-BLM Document 34 Filed 05/30/13 Page 10 of 11
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. Motion to Amend

Petitioners move for leave to amend their complaint to cure the jurisdictional

defects identified by the Government’s motion to dismiss. (Mot. to Amend 4–6, ECF

No. 26). As discussed above, Petitioners’ proposed amended complaint seeks de novo

judicial review of their naturalization applications pursuant to § 1447(b), and also

challenges USCIS’s handling of medical waiver requests. (Proposed First Am. Compl.,

ECF No. 26-3). 

A trial court may deny a motion for leave to amend based on various factors,

including bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of amendment,

and whether the party has previously amended. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182

(1962). Here, Petitioners’ motion to amend is futile because, as explained above, the

posture of the action now before the Court is such that no amendment could remedy the

lack of subject matter jurisdiction prior to Petitioners’ completion of the administrative

appeal process prescribed by § 1447(a). For this reason, the proposed amended

complaint does not, in fact, cure any of the defects identified by the Government. 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioners’ motion for leave to amend. 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS the Government’s motion

to dismiss and DENIES Petitioners’ motion to amend. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 30, 2013

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

- 11 - 12cv1933 

Case 3:12-cv-01933-JLS-BLM Document 34 Filed 05/30/13 Page 11 of 11