Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04894/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04894-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 462
Nature of Suit: Naturalization, Petition For Hearing of Denial
Cause of Action: Application for Naturalization

---

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 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TANYER VAKILI,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 15-4894 CRB

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH

PREJUDICE

Plaintiff Tanyer Vakili has failed to prosecute this case. All of his claims, for that

matter, are meritless. For both reasons, the Court DISMISSES his claims with prejudice.

I. FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

On October 23, 2015, Vakili filed a Complaint against Defendants alleging a “delay in

immigration case # [sic]” and “requesting a review in [his] time limitation to apply for

naturalization.” Compl. at 2. He applied to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). See First IFP

Appl. (dkt. 2). On November 13, 2015, Magistrate Judge Westmore denied his IFP

application due to incompleteness and invited Vakili to amend by December 16, 2015. See

Order Denying First IFP Appl. (dkt. 4).

Vakili failed to amend the application or pay the filing fee on time. See Report &

Recommendation (dkt. 7) (“R&R”) at 1. He also did not respond to the Court Clerk’s two

notices—dated December 29, 2015, and January 19, 2016—to consent to or decline

Case 3:15-cv-04894-CRB Document 43 Filed 11/21/16 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

magistrate jurisdiction. Id.; see First Jurisdiction Notice (dkt. 5); Second Jurisdiction Notice

(dkt. 6). Magistrate Judge Westmore recommended dismissal of the case without prejudice

“for failure to pay the filing fee,” and reassigned it to a district judge “because Plaintiff has

not consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction.” R&R at 1. The case was then reassigned to

this Court. Order Reassigning Case (dkt. 8). 

On March 4, 2016, the Court adopted magistrate court recommendations and

dismissed the case without prejudice “for failure to pay filing fees” and allowed for

amendment within 30 days. Order Dismissing Case (dkt. 9). On April 12, 2016, the Court

ordered Vakili to “pay any outstanding filing fees or submit a complete [IFP] application

within 30 days,” lest his case be dismissed with prejudice. Order Setting Payment Deadline

(dkt. 10). Vakili reapplied to proceed IFP on May 13, 2016, Second IFP Appl. (dkt. 12), and

the Court granted the application. Order Regarding Second IFP Appl. (dkt. 13).

On August 26, 2016, Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, MTD at 1,

and – when Vakili failed to oppose – asked the Court to dismiss the case with prejudice. 

Def. Notice (dkt. 29); see Civil L.R. 7-4(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C). On October 14,

2016, the Court ordered Vakili to “show cause [within seven days] why this case should not

be dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute.” Order to Show Cause

(dkt. 32) (“OSC”). On October 26, 2016 – after the deadline had passed – Vakili moved to

continue and asked for the opportunity to retrieve potential evidence from Los Angeles and

“attend one last case management conference no sooner than [November] 9.” Mot. to

Continue (dkt. 34) (“MTC”). Vakili alleged that those documents included “written mistakes

of USCIS in [his] hearing of deporting case [sic].” Id.

Vakili also explained that he has spent the last two years primarily in Iran and Turkey,

with short visits to the United States to maintain his permanent residency, to settle an

inheritance matter and “[d]ue to depression and financial burden that USCIS caused on [his]

emotional and physical well being [sic].” Resp. to OSC (dkt. 35) at 2. Though he was

unable to “follow the case . . . and show up to hearings” because of his travels, Vakili had

since moved back to California and said he would be “able to follow up and attend any future

Case 3:15-cv-04894-CRB Document 43 Filed 11/21/16 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

court date.” Id. He wanted the “chance to defand [sic] [his] case and apply for . . .

citizenship,” and reform the “broken Immigration System [sic] in this country.” Id. at 4.

The Court set a hearing on Defendants’ motion to dismiss for 10:00am on November

18, 2016. See Clerk’s Notice (dkt. 36). But when the Court adjourned at 11:45am, Vakili

had yet to appear. See Case Mgmt. Conf. (dkt. 42) at 1. Enough is enough. The case is

DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to prosecute under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 

II. MERITLESS CLAIMS

What is more, Vakili has put the Court and the government through the ringer in

pursuit of meritless claims. So, in the alternative, the Court DISMISSES all claims with

prejudice on their own terms. It does so without oral argument under Local Rule 7-1(b).

A. Claim Regarding Non-Existent Naturalization Application

Vakili sued due to an alleged “delay in immigration case [sic]” and requested “a

review in [his] time limitation to apply for naturalization.” Compl. (dkt. 1) at 2. That will

not work. To seek naturalization as a U.S. citizen, a person must be a permanent resident for

at least five years or, if married to a U.S. citizen, at least three years. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1427(a);

1430(a). The naturalization application may be filed “up to 3 months before the date the

applicant would first otherwise meet . . . [the] residence requirement.” Id. § 1445(a). But

because Vakili only became a permanent resident on December 19, 2014, he may not apply

for naturalization until September 19, 2019 – or September 19, 2017, if he is married to a

U.S. citizen. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1427(a), 1430(a), 1445(a); Frigge Decl. ¶¶ 5–6. 

“No alien has the slightest right to naturalization unless all statutory requirements are”

met. Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 830 (1971) (citation omitted). The Court does not have

subject matter jurisdiction to review a naturalization application that does not exist. See 8

U.S.C. § 1421(c) (requiring an applicant to exhaust administrative remedies before seeking

judicial review); Frigge Decl. ¶ 3 (noting that Vakili has not filed an application for

naturalization). It also cannot amend the statute. See U.S. Const. art. I sec. 1 (“All

legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress . . . .”). The Court therefore

DISMISSES this claim with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject

Case 3:15-cv-04894-CRB Document 43 Filed 11/21/16 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

In response to Vakili’s first, 2010 FOIA request, “USCIS released 207 pages in full and 49 in 1

part, withheld 18 pages in full, and referred 12 pages to other agencies.” Id. ¶ 3.

 In response to Vakili’s second, 2012 FOIA request, “USCIS released 254 pages in full and 46 2

in part, withheld 15 pages in full, and referred 94 pages to other agencies.” Id. ¶ 4.

4

matter jurisdiction or, in the alternative, under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. And

because amendment would be futile, dismissal with prejudice is proper. See Sonoma Cnty.

Ass’n of Retired Emps. v. Sonoma Cnty., 708 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 2013).

B. (Possible) Claim Regarding FOIA Requests

In his response to the Court’s order to show cause – but not in his complaint – Vakili

appears to allege that USCIS made a mistake in processing his “FOIA request.” Resp. to

OSC at 2-3. But according to a Deputy Associate Center Director in the FOIA Unit of the

USCIS National Records Center, USCIS “responded . . . in full” to Vakili’s first FOIA

request filed in 2010. Welsh Decl. (dkt. 38-1) ¶¶ 1–3. Once USCIS made its decision, “[n]o 1

administrative appeal was pursued [within the allotted 60 days], and this request was closed.” 

Id. ¶ 3; Welsh Decl. Ex. 1 (dkt. 38-1) at 5. Likewise, USCIS “responded . . . in full” to

Vakili’s second FOIA request, filed on May 25, 2012. Id. ¶ 4. Following the agency

response, “[n]o administrative appeal was pursued [within the allotted 60 days], and this 2

request was closed.” Id.; Welsh Decl. Ex. 2 (dkt. 38-2) at 8. According to the Director,

Vakili did not file any other FOIA requests with USCIS, and “no FOIA requests for his

records are [currently] pending.” Id. ¶ 5.

“Exhaustion of a parties’ [sic] administrative remedies is required under the FOIA

before that party can seek judicial review.” Id. at 465 (citations omitted). Because Vakili

made “no attempt to comply fully with agency procedures,” the Court lacks subject matter

jurisdiction to review his claim. In re Steele, 799 F.2d 461, 466 (9th Cir. 1986) (citation

omitted). This claim is therefore DISMISSED with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). 

C. (Possible) Claim Regarding Removal Proceedings

Finally, Vakili asserts in his motion to continue that USCIS made unspecified “written

mistakes” in “[his] hearing of deporting case [sic].” MTC at 1. To the extent he raises them

as a separate claims here, Vakili already complained about alleged problems with his

Case 3:15-cv-04894-CRB Document 43 Filed 11/21/16 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 A third suit, Vakili v. U.S. Agency Homeland Sec., No. 12-CV-11041 (C.D. Cal. June 24, 3

2013), was also dismissed for lack of prosecution.

5

removal proceedings in a separate suit long before raising the issue here.See id.; Vakili v.

Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 15-4903 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2016). In that suit Vakili alleged,

among other things, that the DHS officer who interviewed him regarding a reinstatement of

his student visa “hardly [spoke] English”; that he “was wrongly detained by ICE” on

December 28, 2010; and that approval of his case took seven years. Compl. (No. 15-4903;

dkt. 1) at 2. The court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim on February 2, 2016. 

Order Dismissing Case (No. 15-4903; dkt. 9). Vakili never amended his complaint despite

the opportunity to do so. 

3

Vakili does not get a second bite at the apple. To the extent he brings claims related

to his removal proceedings, they are DISMISSED with prejudice under the first-to-file rule

because a case “involving the same parties and issues has already been filed” in another

court. See Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld Prods. Inc., 946 F.2d 622, 625 (9th Cir. 1991).

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the case is DISMISSED with prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November __, 2016 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21

Case 3:15-cv-04894-CRB Document 43 Filed 11/21/16 Page 5 of 5