Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02333/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02333-0/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 - 06cv2333

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ENRIQUE FRIDMAN,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06cv2333 WQH (CAB)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS ACTION FOR LACK OF

SUBJECT-MATTER

JURISDICTION

(D.E. 3)

vs.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary of the

Department of Homeland Security; EMILIO

GONZALEZ, Director of the Bureau of

Citizenship and Immigration Services; PAUL

PIERRE, District Director of the San Diego

District of the Citizenship and Immigration

Services; and ALBERTO GONZALEZ,

Attorney General of the United States,

Defendants.

Plaintiff, Enrique Fridman, is a lawful permanent resident of the United States of America and

a citizen of Mexico. He interviewed for naturalization on February 25, 2005. At that interview,

Plaintiff signed a waiver of his rights under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) (providing for district court review of

a naturalization application if an agency decision is not issued “before the end of the 120-day period

after the date on which the examination is conducted”). On October 5, 2006, Plaintiff withdrew his

waiver. On October 19, 2006, he filed his Complaint in this Court, alleging that Defendants have

illegally delayed the processing or adjudication of his application and seeking injunctive and other

relief.

Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint on the grounds that Plaintiff’s waiver tolled

Case 3:06-cv-02333-WQH-CAB Document 7 Filed 02/01/07 Page 1 of 2
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 - 06cv2333

the statutory period after which this Court may assume jurisdiction. Defendants argue that by signing

the waiver, Plaintiff released the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) from

its duty to adjudicate his application within 120 days of his naturalization interview. Plaintiff’s

October 5, 2006 withdrawal of the waiver, which commenced the 120-day period for agency

adjudication, occurred less than 120 days ago, and accordingly, Defendants argue, this Court may not

exercise jurisdiction over the Complaint. Defendants point to Raufi v. Chertoff, 434 F. Supp. 2d 813

(S.D. Cal. 2006), wherein Judge Miller held that the 120-day period for adjudicating a lawful

permanent resident’s application for naturalization commenced on the date he revoked his signed,

written waiver of the 120-day period.

In the face of Raufi, Plaintiff states that he will not oppose the dismissal of his Complaint for

want of subject-matter jurisdiction, but he notes:

The Plaintiff filed his withdrawal on October 5, 2006. The 120-day period from that

date runs to February 2, 2007, only four days after the scheduled hearing on the

Defendants’ Motion. Thus, it seems to be an unnecessary use of judicial resources to

dismiss Plaintiff’s lawsuit since, even by the Defendants’ own admission, the Plaintiff

can be back in court within a very short time.

(D.E. 4 at 2.) While the Court may agree with Plaintiff’s sentiment, the law is clear that “[s]ubject

matter jurisdiction must exist as of 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) (citations omitted). In

this case, when the Complaint was filed, subject-matter jurisdiction did not exist.

Therefore, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (D.E. 3) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(1) is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court shall enter JUDGMENT dismissing this

action without prejudice.

DATED: February 1, 2007

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02333-WQH-CAB Document 7 Filed 02/01/07 Page 2 of 2