Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00090/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00090-1/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

YOUSEF ALI AL GADI GADI, CASE NO. CV-F-07-090 LJO SMS

Plaintiff, 

vs.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ 

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary of MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. 14)

Homeland Security, EDUARDO 

AGUIRRE, Director of the United States ORDER VACATING APRIL 19, 2007 

Citizenship and Immigration Services, HEARING

DAVID STILL, District Director of the 

United States Citizenship and 

Immigration Services, DON RIDING,

Officer in Charge of the Fresno Office 

of the United States Citizenship and 

Immigration Services, McGREGOR

SCOTT,,

Defendants.

 /

In this immigration case, Defendant United States Citizenship and Immigration Service

(“USCIS”) moves to dismiss the complaint by Plaintiff, Yousef Ali Al Gadi Gadi (“Gadi”), who is

seeking a writ from the Court mandating USCIS to schedule and administer the citizenship examination

so that Gadi may complete his process of naturalization. USCIS contends Gadi has failed to state a

claim upon which relief can be granted, because the Court can not mandate the agency to do something

it is not legally required to do. In response, Gadi challenges the current procedure of USCIS–using three

separate background checks, rather than one–and claims the agency is legally required to administer the

Case 1:07-cv-00090-LJO -SMS Document 18 Filed 04/17/07 Page 1 of 8
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 this Motion to Dismiss, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (“USCIS”) requests a dismissal 1

pursuant to “Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12, 20(a).” Def. Mot. Dismiss., 1. Upon further inquiry, USCIS clarified that the motion is

based on Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6). 

 Plaintiff became aware of this policy after making an inquiry to USCIS regarding when an examination would be 2

scheduled. Plaintiff was advised that the examination would not take place until after the name check was completed by the

FBI. Complaint,¶ ¶8, 9. Plaintiff and Defendant both acknowledge this policy in their arguments. Def. Mot. Dismiss, 5 n.2;

Pl. Opp. Mot. Dismiss, 2:24-26. Thus, there is no disagreement between the parties about the existence of this new policy.

2

examination. This Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6) issue presents a two-fold question: (1) whether requiring 1

a name check by the Federal Bureau of Investigation is consistent with the meaning of “full background

check” as authorized by Congress, and (2) whether Gadi has jurisdiction to bring the instant action

pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act and this Court’s mandamus authority. 

I. BACKGROUND

Gadi, a legal permanent resident, applied for naturalization on November 14, 2005. On

December 9, 2005, and in association with his application for naturalization, Gadi submitted fingerprints

to be checked by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Gadi “is informed” and “believes” that USCIS

received the results of the Federal Bureau of Investigation fingerprint check shortlythereafter, more than

one year ago. Since that time, although Gadi made several requests, no examination for naturalization

has been scheduled. On January 16, 2007, Gadi filed this action to compel the government to act on the

naturalization application by scheduling and having an examination. On March 16, 2007, the

Government filed the current Motion to Dismiss. On April 2, 2007, Gadi responded.

II. ISSUES PRESENTED 

Gadi’s complaint challenges a new policy of USCIS, which requires the completion of three

background checks before an alien is scheduled for an examination pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1446. These 2

background checks are: (1) a “fingerprint check” run by the Federal Bureau of Investigation; (2) a check

against the Department of Homeland Security’s own Interagency Border Inspection system; and (3) a

“name check” run by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Def. Mot. Dismiss, 5:15-18. Until recently,

it was the practice of USCIS to schedule an examination after the complete of the fingerprint check only.

Case 1:07-cv-00090-LJO -SMS Document 18 Filed 04/17/07 Page 2 of 8
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

 Def. Mot. Dismiss, 5 n.2. 

Gadi claims that the recent change in USCIS policy is an impermissible expansion of the

definition of the term “full background check” by the Service and is unauthorized by Congress. 

Because the fingerprint check was completed over a year ago, and because the Federal Bureau of

Investigation name check is unauthorized, an unreasonable delay as defined in 5 U.S.C. §706(1) has

occurred, thereby allowing relief as prayed. Gadi requests that the Court mandate USCIS to schedule

and administer the examination, so that he may continue his naturalization application process. 

USCIS moves to dismiss this action because the three forms of security and background checks,

including the name check, are designed to meet the minimum standards of 8 U.S.C. §1446(a), (b) and

8 C.F.R. § 335.1 and therefore authorized by Congress. USCIS is not legally required to schedule and

administer the examination, because the examination may not be scheduled until a full background check

is complete. 8 C.F.R. §335.2(b). Since the background check (including the authorized name check)

is not yet complete, the motion should be granted. 

To determine jurisdiction, the Court first considers whether the challenged policy requiring a

name check before the scheduling of an examination is authorized under the applicable statutes and

regulations. Next, the Court considers whether a writ of mandamus is an appropriate remedy in this

action. For the reasons described below, this action is dismissed. 

III. ANALYSIS

A. Standard of Review

USCIS contends the complaintshould be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) because

it fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. A Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to

dismiss is a challenge to the sufficiency of the pleadings set forth in the complaint. A motion to dismiss

for failure to state a claim should not be granted unless it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove

no set of facts to support the claim to entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69,

73, 104 S.Ct. 2229 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99 (1957)); see also

Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9 Cir. 1981). When addressing a th

motion to dismiss, a court must accept as true the complaint’s allegations in question, Hospital Bld. Co.

Case 1:07-cv-00090-LJO -SMS Document 18 Filed 04/17/07 Page 3 of 8
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

v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740, 96 S.Ct. 1848 (1976), construe the pleading in light most

favorable to the party opposing the motion, and resolve all doubts in the pleader’s favor, Jenkins v.

McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421, 89 S.Ct. 1843, reh’g denied, 396 U.S. 869, 90 S.Ct. 35 (1969).

“When a federal court reviews the sufficiency of a complaint, before the reception of any

evidence either by affidavit or admissions, its task is necessarily a limited one. The issue is not whether

a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the

claims.” Scheurer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683 (1974); Gilligan v. Jamco Development

Corp., 108 F.3d 246, 249 (9 Cir. 1997). A F.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) dismissal is proper where there is either th

a “lack of a cognizable legal theory” or “the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal

theory.” Balisteri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9 Cir. 1990); Graehling v. Village of th

Lombard, Ill., 58 F.3d 295, 297 (7 Cir. 1995). th

B. Federal Bureau of Investigation Name Check Authorized

Congress authorized the Attorney General and USCIS to investigate legal permanent residents

when they apply for naturalization. See 8 U.S.C. §1446 (a), (b). In 1997, Congress underscored the

importance of background checks when it passed the following legislation:

[N]one of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the Immigration and

Naturalization Service shall be used to complete adjudication of an application for

naturalization unless the Immigration and Naturalization Service has received

confirmation from the Federal Bureau of Investigation that a full criminal background

check has been completed.... 

 Pub. L. 105-119, Title I, 111 Stat. 2448 (Nov. 26, 1997), reprinted in Historical and Statutory Notes

following INA 335, 8 U.S.C. 1446 (“Criminal background check as prerequisite to adjudication of

application for naturalization”). Not only is a full background check required before the adjudication

of an application, but federal regulations also require a full background check be complete before an

initial examination of the applicant. 8 C.F.R. §335.2(b). 

Pursuant to the legislation above, regulations were adopted to define the minimum requirements

for a background check. The minimum requirements are expounded in 8 C.F.R. §335.1 (2004), which

reads:

Subsequent to the filing of an application for naturalization, the Service shall conduct an

Case 1:07-cv-00090-LJO -SMS Document 18 Filed 04/17/07 Page 4 of 8
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

See 8 U.S.C. §1101(f); 8 C.F.R. §316.10(b)(1), (2). 3

See 8 U.S.C. §1427(a), (d). 4

 See 8 U.S.C. §1101(f). 5

Plaintiff does not argue that the inter-agency check by the Department of Homeland Security is unauthorized; 6

however, the ruling is applicable to all three checks currently used by USCIS. 

5

investigation of the applicant. The investigation shall consist, at a minimum, of a review

of all pertinent records, police department checks, and a neighborhood investigation in

the vicinities where the applicant has resided and has been employed, or engaged in

business, for at least the last five years immediately preceding the filing of the

application...

///

Working within the minimum standards as defined by 8 C.F.R. §335.1, USCIS currently

conducts three forms of security and background checks when a lawful permanent resident applies for

naturalization: (1) the Federal Bureau of Investigation fingerprint check, (2) a check against the

Department of Homeland Security’s own Interagency Border Inspection System, and (3) a Federal

Bureau of Investigation name check. USCIS must perform these checks in order to fully investigate an

applicant and perform its statutory duties of determining whether an alien has established that there are

no permanent or statutory bars to naturalization , that they are a person of good moral character , and 3 4

that they have not committed or been convicted of certain criminal offenses, including crimes involving

moral turpitude. 

5

The legislation and regulations define minimum standards of investigation, not maximum

standards. Furthermore, faced with the task of discovering whether a person has been convicted of

certain offenses or is otherwise barred from naturalization, it is reasonable to require not only a

fingerprint check, but also a name check through the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Therefore, these 6

checks are well within the authority Congress granted USCIS and the regulations interpreting such

authorization. Accordingly, requiring a Federal Bureau of Investigation name check in additional to a

fingerprint check is an acceptable and authorized procedure adopted by USCIS.

Gadi challenges the new policy of USCIS as “expanding the requirements prior to scheduling

an interview.” Pl. Opp. Mot. Dismiss, 2:25-26. In the Motion to Dismiss, USCIS describes the new

Case 1:07-cv-00090-LJO -SMS Document 18 Filed 04/17/07 Page 5 of 8
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

policy: “Initially the USICS had interpreted the regulations to require only that the USCIS receive the

results of the Federal Bureau of Investigation fingerprint check prior to interviewing naturalization

applicants. However, the USCIS has recently determined not to schedule interviews until after all

checks have been completed.” Def. Mot. Dismiss, 5 n.2. 

Rather than expanding the requirements of a background check, this policy aligns itself with the

mandates set forth in 8 C.F.R. §335.2 (b) (no examination until completion of background check).

According to the regulation, interviews of an applicant for naturalization should not be scheduled until

the full background check is complete, which includes both the fingerprint and name check conducted

by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Therefore, this policy does not make an unauthorized expansion

of the requirements of a background check, as Gadi asserts. Instead, it brings the procedure of USCIS

within its legal obligations. 

Finally, Gadi’s claim that 8 C.F.R. §335.2 “defines a full criminal background check” is

misplaced. 8 C.F.R. §335.2(b) reads:

(b) Completion of Criminal background checks before examination. The service shall

notify applicants for naturalization to appear before a Service officer for initial

examination on the naturalization application only after the Service has received a

definitive response the Federal Bureau of Investigation that a full criminal background

check on an applicant has been completed. A definitive response that a full criminal

background check on an applicant has been completed includes:

(1) Confirmation from the Federal Bureau of Investigation that an applicant does not

have an administrative or a criminal record;

(2) Confirmation from the Federal Bureau of Investigation that an applicant hans an

administrative or a criminal record; or

(3) Confirmation from the Federal Bureau of Investigation that two properly prepared

fingerprint cards have been determined unclassifiable for the purpose of conducting a

criminal background check and have been rejected. 

8 C.F.R. §335.2 defines what a definitive response to a full background check that has been

completed includes, not what particular checks are required under a full background check. Despite

Gadi’s assertion, the plain language of 8 C.F.R. §335.2 does not define “full background check” as a

fingerprint check by the Federal Bureau of Investigation only. While 8 C.F.R. §335.2(b)(3) defines a

definitive response as two fingerprint cards that are determined unclassifiable, neither this nor the other

definitions within this section specifically limit the meaning of a “full background check” to solely a

fingerprint check. Instead, this regulation defines what must happen for any such check from the Federal

Bureau of Investigation to be deemed complete. Read together with the other statutes and regulations,

Case 1:07-cv-00090-LJO -SMS Document 18 Filed 04/17/07 Page 6 of 8
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

such a definition is only a minimum requirement. To prove that a Federal Bureau of Investigation name

check is unauthorized, Gadi would need to cite authority which clearly defines “background check”as

a Federal Bureau of Investigation fingerprint check. Gadi cites no such authority.

///

C. No Jurisdiction pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act

The Court agrees with USCIS that Gadi may not seek a writ of mandamus under the

Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). Gadi alleges that the Court has jurisdiction over this action

under the mandamus statute, 28 U.S.C. §1361, and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §706(1).

The APA provides that “[w]ith due regard for the convenience and necessity of the parties or their

representatives and within a reasonable time, each agency shall proceed to conclude a matter presented

to it. 5 U.S.C. §555. 5 U.S.C. §706(1) provides that a reviewing court “shall compel agency action

unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.” Construing this statute, the Court held that “the only

agency action that can be compelled under the APA is action legally required. This limitation appears

in 8 U.S.C. 706(1)’s authorization for courts to ‘compel agency action unlawfully withheld.” Norton v.

Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 524 U.S. 55, 63 (2004) (emphasis in original). The essential

allegation, that the action is “unreasonably delayed” is also not a ground for jurisdiction. As the

Supreme Court noted, “a delay cannot be unreasonable with respect to action that is not required.”

Norton, 524 U.S. at 63, n.1. A claim under [5 U.S.C.]§ 706(1) can go forward only “where a plaintiff

asserts than an agency failed to take a discrete agency action that it is required to take.” Id. at 64

(emphasis in original). 

USCIS is not legally required to administer the examination until the full background check is

complete. As discussed above, pursuant to the applicable statutes, regulations, and procedures, USCIS

permissibly requires the completion of three different background checks before the examination is

administered to an applicant for naturalization. At this time, Gadi does not assert that all three checks

are complete. While the fingerprint check has been complete for over a year, this is not enough. Gadi

must wait until the name check and the intra-agency check is complete as well before he can expect an

examination pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1446(b). Thus, assuming all facts asserted by Gadi are true, his

application is not yet ripe for examination. Therefore, he may not rely upon the APA to seek a writ of

Case 1:07-cv-00090-LJO -SMS Document 18 Filed 04/17/07 Page 7 of 8
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

There is no difference for the purposes of this action between Gadi’s Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) claim 7

and his mandamus claim, because under both, Gadi is requesting that this Court order USCIS to take an action it is not yet

required by statute to take. Gadi’s application has not yet reached a point at which USCIS is legally required to act on it;

therefore, Gadi cannot argue that any action has been improperly withheld by USCIS. As a consequence, he cannot obtain

relief either under the APA or this Court’s mandamus power. 

8

mandamus scheduling such an examination from this Court. 

7

IV. CONCLUSION

Gadi does not assert a legally cognizable theory, because he cites no authority which limits the

“full background check” to a fingerprint check by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The name check

is a reasonable procedure adopted by the USCIS to investigate naturalization applicants. Even if all

facts asserted by Gadi are true, indeed they are not contested, he fails to state a claim upon which he may

rely, because the full background check is not complete and he is not yet entitled to an examination.

Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.

The Clerk of Court is directed to VACATE the hearing currently set for April 19, 2007 and

CLOSE this action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00090-LJO -SMS Document 18 Filed 04/17/07 Page 8 of 8