Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-06266/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-06266-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 462
Nature of Suit: Naturalization, Petition For Hearing of Denial
Cause of Action: 08:1329 Writ of Mandamus to Adjudicate Visa Petition

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS—No. C-07-06266 RMW

MAG

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-FILED on 4/16/08

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

GANG WANG,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL MUKASEY; MICHAEL

CHERTOFF; and EMILIO GONZALEZ,

Defendants.

No. C-07-06266 RMW

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS'

MOTION TO DISMISS

[Re Docket No. 7]

On December 11, 2007, plaintiff Gang Wang petitioned the court for a writ of mandamus to

compel action on his naturalization application. Defendants Mukasey, Chertoff, Gonzalez and

Mueller move to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a

claim upon which relief can be granted. For the reasons set forth below, the court denies the motion.

I. BACKGROUND

Wang is a citizen of People's Republic of China. Compl. ¶ 14. He has lived in the United

States since 1995 and has been a permanent resident since August 20, 2001. Id. Wang applied for

citizenship on June 1, 2006 by filing an N-400 Application for Naturalization. Id. ¶ 15; Decl. of

Janaki Rangaswamy ("Rangaswamy Decl.") ¶ 16. He was fingerprinted on July 6, 2006. Id. He has

not yet been scheduled for a naturalization interview. Compl. ¶ 12; Rangaswamy Decl. ¶ 16.

Case 5:07-cv-06266-RMW Document 19 Filed 04/16/08 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 To be clear, Wang's complaint seeks mandamus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361 and 5 U.S.C. § 

706(1). It does not ask for relief under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), which permits an applicant to ask the

District Court for a hearing on his or her naturalization application if USCIS has not adjudicated the

application within 120 days of examining the applicant. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) the district court

may either determine the matter or remand to USCIS to determine the matter.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS—No. C-07-06266 RMW

MAG 2

Wang inquired about the status of his citizenship application in April of 2007 and was

notified that his background investigation was still pending. Id. ¶ 16. His name check was

submitted to the Federal Bureau of Investigations ("FBI") on June 12, 2006 and is currently pending.

Rangaswamy Decl. ¶ 16. On December 11, 2007, Wang filed this action requesting the court (1) to

compel the FBI to complete his name check and to require the United States Citizen and

Immigration Services ("USCIS") to adjudicate his naturalization application within 20 days of the

writ being issued, and (2) to award attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. §

2412.1

II. ANALYSIS

In his complaint, Wang asserts three bases for this court's jurisdiction: (1) mandamus

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361; (2) the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C.

§551 et seq.; and (3) the declaratory judgment statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2201. Defendants contend that the

court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Wang's complaint. Defendants also contend that the

complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, since the requested relief is for the

USCIS to adjudicate his naturalization application and the USCIS is prohibited from doing so until

the FBI completes its name check on Wang. 

A. Motion to Dismiss Defendant Mueller

As an initial matter, defendants move to dismiss defendant Mueller, director of the FBI,

asserting that courts have recognized that the Department of Homeland Security, not the FBI, has

been the agency responsible for implementing United States immigration laws and that any duty

owed by the FBI is owed to USCIS, not to plaintiff. 

While defendants' arguments may find purchase outside the context of adjudicating

naturalization applications, the court comes to a different conclusion with regard to N-400

Case 5:07-cv-06266-RMW Document 19 Filed 04/16/08 Page 2 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 "[N]one of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the [INS] shall be used to

complete adjudication of an application for naturalization unless the [INS] has received confirmation

from the Federal Bureau of Investigation that a full criminal background check has been completed."

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS—No. C-07-06266 RMW

MAG 3

applications. Magistrate Judge Zimmerman recently articulated a mandatory duty owed directly to a

naturalization applicant by the FBI:

I conclude that the FBI has a mandatory duty to complete its background check within

a reasonable time even though that duty is not expressly stated in a statute. Such a

duty must follow from the 1997 funding legislation and the implementing regulations

which injected the FBI into the naturalization process by requiring that the FBI

conduct a full criminal background check of a naturalization applicant before the

USCIS can complete its adjudication of the application. Pub. L. 105-119, 111 Stat.

2440, 2448-49, Tit. I, Nov. 26, 1997.2

 This requirement is codified in 8 C.F.R. §

335.2(b). Other regulations require applicants to submit their fees to USCIS, which in

turn provides a portion of the fees to the FBI to complete the fingerprint and name

checks. 8 C.F.R § 334.2; 72 Fed. Reg. 4888, 4889 (proposed Feb. 1, 2007) (proposing

increased fees for applicants based, in part, to "costs due to the FBI for background

checks"). "[W]here Congress has conditioned CIS's mandatory action on the FBI's

completion of background checks, and where applicants must pay the FBI, through

CIS, to complete the background checks, the Court holds that Congress has, by

implication, imposed on the FBI a mandatory duty to complete the background

checks." Kaplan v. Chertoff, 481 F. Supp. 2d 370, 401 (E.D. Pa. 2007); see also Al

Daraji v. Monica, 2007 WL 2994608 at *3-*5 (E.D. Pa. 2007).

Moretazpour v. Chertoff, 2007 WL 4287363, 1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2007) (Zimmerman, M.J.)

(footnote number altered from n.6 to n.2); but see Antonishin v. Keisler, 2007 WL 2788841, *5 (N.D.

Ill. Sept. 20, 2007) (acknowledging the funding arrangement discussed in Kaplan and Moretazpour

but declining to infer a duty "based on an appropriations measure directed to a different agency");

Wang v. Gonzales, 2008 WL 45492 at *3 (D. Kan. Jan. 2, 2008) (same).

As noted in Moretazpour, this duty does not arise in cases involving the adjudication of I-485

applications for permanent residency, because the FBI's involvement in conducting background

checks arises by contract rather than by statute. Therefore, this court's previous decisions to dismiss

the FBI are distinguishable. See, e.g., Konchitsky v. Chertoff, 2007 WL 2070325 at *6 (N.D. Cal.

July 13, 2007) (Whyte, J.). The court agrees with Judge Zimmerman's conclusion and likewise finds

that the FBI has a mandatory duty to complete its background check on naturalization applicants in a

reasonable time. See also Kaplan, 481 F. Supp. 2d at 401 ("[I]t appears clear from a number of

Congressional enactments that Congress has imposed a mandatory duty on the FBI to perform

background checks [for naturalization applicants]."). Because funds to commence the adjudication of

the applicant's naturalization application cannot be used until the FBI has completed its background

Case 5:07-cv-06266-RMW Document 19 Filed 04/16/08 Page 3 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS—No. C-07-06266 RMW

MAG 4

check, it logically follows that the FBI has a duty to the applicant to complete its background check

in a reasonable time. The court therefore denies defendants' motion to dismiss Mueller.

B. Duty to Act

As set forth above, Wang seeks relief under both the Mandamus Act and the APA. The

Mandamus Act provides: "A court has jurisdiction in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or

employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff." 28.

U.S.C. § 1361. A writ of mandamus is appropriate when a plaintiff has "no alternative or adequate

remedy" and the defendant owes him a clear non-discretionary duty. Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602

(1984). The Ninth Circuit has stated that "[m]andamus . . . 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 APA "authorizes suits by any person suffering legal wrong because of agency action." 5

U.S.C. § 702. Agency action includes the failure of an agency to act. 5. U.S.C. § 551(13). The APA

provides that "a reviewing court shall . . . compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably

delayed." 5 U.S.C. § 706(1). In order to bring a claim under the APA, two criteria must be satisfied. 

First, the "agency action complained of must be final agency action." Norton v. Southern Utah

Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55, 61 (2004). Second, the plaintiff must assert that an agency failed

to take a discrete agency action that it is required to take. Id.

Defendants' primary argument is that this court lacks jurisdiction over Wang's complaint

because Wang cannot establish the existence of a nondiscretionary ministerial duty. Their contention

appears to apply equally to Wang's claims under both the Mandamus Act and the APA. As set forth

above, the court has concluded that a mandatory duty exists as to the FBI to conduct background

checks on applicants for naturalization. With regard to the USCIS, the court has previously held in

the context of adjudication of I-485 adjustment applications, there is a non-discretionary duty on the

part of the USCIS to adjudicate applications. See, e.g., Konchitsky, 2007 WL 2070325 at *3. 

Further, Title 8 sets forth the steps for adjudicating a naturalization application in mandatory terms: 

After an individual has filed a naturalization application, a USCIS service officer shall conduct an

Case 5:07-cv-06266-RMW Document 19 Filed 04/16/08 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS—No. C-07-06266 RMW

MAG 5

examination of the applicant. 8 U.S.C. § 1446(b); 8 C.F.R. § 335.2(a). And if the examiner fails to

make the determination under § 1446 within 120 days of the examination, the applicant may seek

judicial relief. 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b).

USCIS nevertheless argues that there can be no duty because, as discussed above, the USCIS

cannot conduct the examination of an applicant until "after the Service has received a definitive

response from the Federal Bureau of Investigation that a full criminal background check of an

applicant has been completed." 8 C.F.R. § 335.2(b). Because plaintiff's background check has not

been received from the FBI, USCIS asserts that it has no duty to proceed with the adjudication of

Wang's application. The court declines to find that the USCIS has no nondiscretionary duty in this

case based solely on the fact that the FBI has not completed its background check. Thus, the court

finds it has requisite jurisdiction over Wang's complaint under both the APA and the Mandamus Act.

C. Failure to State a Claim

Finally, defendants move to dismiss on the basis that Wang's complaint fails to state a claim. 

This argument is based on the same argument presented above: that because Wang's background

check has not been completed by the FBI, his complaint fails to state a claim that USCIS has failed to

take a legally required action, as the USCIS must await the FBI's determination before it can

commence the adjudication of Wang's application. Because the court has concluded that the FBI has

a duty to applicants to conduct background checks in conjunction with naturalization applications,

Wang's complaint sufficiently states a claim. As to the USCIS, the court cannot conclude on the

allegations in the complaint that Wang cannot state a claim with regard to their failure to adjudicate

his naturalization application. 

III. ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the court denies defendant's motion to dismiss.

DATED: 4/16/08

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:07-cv-06266-RMW Document 19 Filed 04/16/08 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS—No. C-07-06266 RMW

MAG 6

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiff:

Tricia Xiaoxia Wang tricia@wangslaw.com 

Counsel for Defendants:

Ila Casy Deiss ila.deiss@usdoj.gov

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not

registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 4/16/08 /s/ MAG

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:07-cv-06266-RMW Document 19 Filed 04/16/08 Page 6 of 6