Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-07837/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-07837-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

---

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 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited. 1

Case No. C 06-7837 JF

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION AND FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

(JFEX1)

**E-Filed 06/06/07**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

QIANG CHEN,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary of the

Department of Homeland Security;

EMILIO T. GONZALEZ, Director of United States

Citizenship and Immigration Services;

DAVID STILL, San Francisco District Director,

United States Citizenship and Immigration

Services;

ROBERT S. MUELLER, Director of the Federal

Bureau of Investigation,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 06-7837 JF

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 1

DISMISS FOR LACK OF

JURISDICTION AND FAILURE TO

STATE A CLAIM

[re: docket no. 5, 12]

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Qiang Chen is a native of the People’s Republic of China who submitted an I485 application to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (“USCIS”) on August

24, 2004, seeking to adjust his immigration status to that of lawful permanent resident. The

application remains unadjudicated after almost three years. Plaintiff asserts that he and his

Case 5:06-cv-07837-JF Document 16 Filed 06/06/07 Page 1 of 6
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

The Court recently decided similar motions in Tang v. Chertoff, No. C 07-0395 2

(N.D.Cal. June 5, 2007) (order denying motion to dismiss) and Tang v. Chertoff, No. C 07-0683

(N.D.Cal. June 5, 2007) (same). 

2

Case No. C 06-7837 JF

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION AND FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

(JFEX1)

congressional representatives have made numerous inquiries of the USCIS and the FBI regarding

his application. On December 21, 2006, he filed the complaint (“Complaint”) in this action,

alleging that Defendants have violated the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) by

unreasonably delaying the adjudication of his application. Plaintiff seeks a writ of mandamus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361 compelling Defendants to process his application. On February 27,

2007, Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Defendants argue that their duty to process I-485 applications within a

particular time frame is wholly discretionary and that the APA exempts such discretionary

agency actions from judicial review. Plaintiff opposes the motion. The Court concludes that this

motion is appropriate for decision without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b).2

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) challenges the

jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter of the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).

District courts have “original jurisdiction of any action 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. Under the APA, “[w]ith due regard for the convenience and

necessity of the parties or their representatives and within reasonable time, each agency shall

proceed to conclude the matters presented to it.” 5 U.S.C. § 555(b). Should an agency not

proceed pursuant to section 555(b), a court may hear a petition for a writ of mandamus

compelling an agency to perform an “action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.” 5

U.S.C. § 706(1). To invoke subject matter jurisdiction under the APA, a petitioner must show (1)

that Defendants had a nondiscretionary duty to act and (2) that Defendants unreasonably delayed

in acting on that duty. Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55, 63-65; 5 U.S.C. §§

555(b), 706(1). See also Gelfer v. Chertoff, 2007 WL 902382 * 1 (N.D. Cal. 2007).

A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of the claims

Case 5:06-cv-07837-JF Document 16 Filed 06/06/07 Page 2 of 6
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

Case No. C 06-7837 JF

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION AND FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

(JFEX1)

asserted in the complaint. In resolving a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must construe the

complaint in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, and accept Plaintiff’s factual allegations as

true. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

III. DISCUSSION

1. Defendants’ Nondiscretionary Duty

Defendants argue neither section 1361 nor the APA is a basis for subject matter

jurisdiction because Defendants’ duty to process the I-485 applications in a particular time frame

is discretionary. Motion 6. The Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) authorizes “the

Attorney General, in his discretion,” to adjust to permanent resident status certain aliens who

have been admitted into the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1255. However, as the government has

conceded in at least two similar actions, see Singh v. Still, 470 F. Supp. 2d 1064, 1067 (N.D. Cal.

2007), and Gelfer, 2007 WL 902382 at * 2, while its duty to grant an adjusted status is

discretionary, its duty to process I-485 applications under section 1255 is nondiscretionary. Id.

2. Defendants’ Unreasonable Delay

To establish jurisdiction, Plaintiff also must demonstrate that Defendants have failed to

act within a reasonable period of time. Unreasonable delay may be redressed by a writ of

mandamus. See Singh, 470 F. Supp. 2d at 1068 (“petitioners whose applications for adjustment

in status are properly before the INS . . . have a right, enforceable through a writ of mandamus, to

have the applications processed within a reasonable time.”); Gelfer, 2007 WL 902382 at * 4 - * 5

(“Allowing the respondents a limitless amount of time to adjudicate petitioner’s [I-485]

application would be contrary to the ‘reasonable time’ frame mandated under 5 U.S.C. §

555(b)”). Although no time frame is defined in the INA, “a contrary position would permit

[Defendants] to delay indefinitely,” and “Congress could not have intended to authorize

potentially interminable delays.” Yu v. Brown, 36 F. Supp. 2d 922, 932 (D.N.M. 1999)

(addressing section 1255 and other INA statutes).

Plaintiff filed his I-485 application on August 24, 2004. The Court appreciates that the

security checks performed on I-485 applications are essential to the nation’s security and that the

number of applications that must be checked has increased drastically since 9/11. However,

Case 5:06-cv-07837-JF Document 16 Filed 06/06/07 Page 3 of 6
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

Case No. C 06-7837 JF

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION AND FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

(JFEX1)

Defendants do not identify any specific actions they have taken to process Plaintiff’s application,

nor do they provide a sufficiently specific explanation for their exceedingly long delay in

processing Plaintiff’s application. On the instant record, which lacks a particular explanation as

to the cause of the delay, the Court concludes that over two years is an unreasonable delay under

the APA. See Gelfer, 2007 WL 902382 at *3 (a two year delay in processing an I-485 application

is unreasonable as a matter of law); Wu v. Chertoff, 2007 WL 1223858 (N.D.Cal. 2007) (a three

year delay in processing an I-485 application is an unreasonable amount of time as a matter of

law).

Accordingly, the Court concludes that it has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s

complaint under § 1361 and the APA. Defendants have a nondiscretionary duty to process

Plaintiff’s I-485 application within a reasonable period of time and Defendants have delayed

unreasonably in fulfilling this duty. Assuming as it must at the pleading stage that Plaintiff’s

factual allegations are true, the Court expresses no opinion as to the proper outcome of the

review of Plaintiff’s I-485 application. As noted above, the Court lacks jurisdiction to review the

outcome of that discretionary review. See Norton, 542 U.S. at 65; Gelfer, 2007 WL 902382, at

*2; Chen v. Chertoff, No. C-06-07927 at 3-4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2007) (order denying motion to

dismiss).

IV. ORDER

Good cause therefor appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

(1) Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to

state a claim is DENIED.

(2) The Department of Homeland Security is the agency responsible for implementing the

Immigration and Nationality Act, and so Michael Chertoff, in his capacity as Secretary of

the Department of Homeland Security is the only relevant Defendant in this action. This

matter is dismissed, in its entirety, as to Defendants Emilio T. Gonzalez, David Still, and

Robert S. Mueller.

DATED: 6/6/07

Case 5:06-cv-07837-JF Document 16 Filed 06/06/07 Page 4 of 6
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

5

Case No. C 06-7837 JF

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION AND FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

(JFEX1)

 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-07837-JF Document 16 Filed 06/06/07 Page 5 of 6
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

Case No. C 06-7837 JF

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION AND FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

(JFEX1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Justin Fok jfok@jclawoffice.com

Ila C. Deiss ila.deiss@usdoj.gov

Case 5:06-cv-07837-JF Document 16 Filed 06/06/07 Page 6 of 6