Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00124/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00124-0/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

- 1 - 07cv0124

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JULIAN RAMON GONZALEZ,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07cv0124 JM(AJB)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

vs. REMAND TO USCIS

ALBERTO GONZALES, Attorney General

of the United States; et al.,

Defendants. 

Defendants move to remand this action to United States Citizenship and Immigration Service

(“USCIS”) for adjudication of Plaintiff’s application for naturalization or, alternatively, to dismiss for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff Julian Ramon Gonzalez opposes the motion and seeks to

have the court adjudicate his application for naturalization. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), this

matter is appropriate for decision without oral argument. For the reasons set forth below, the motion

to remand is granted with instructions to make a determination on Plaintiff’s Form N-400 as

expeditiously as possible but in any event not more than 120 days from the date of entry of this order.

BACKGROUND

On January 10, 2007 Plaintiff commenced this action seeking relief in the nature of mandamus

to compel Defendants to adjudicate his application for naturalization. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants

have illegally delayed the processing or adjudication of his application for naturalization.

Plaintiff, a 55 year old citizen of Mexico, was admitted as a Lawful Permanent Resident on

March 2, 1972. (Oppo. at p.2). On or about October 3, 2005, Plaintiff applied for naturalization by

Case 3:07-cv-00124-JM-AJB Document 11 Filed 05/31/07 Page 1 of 4
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 - 07cv0124

filing Form N-400 with USCIS. (Compl. ¶10). On March 2, 2006 Plaintiff attended his naturalization

interview and passed his English and U.S. History and Government tests. Plaintiff has made

approximately nine inquiries to determine whether Defendants had completed the requisite security

checks. (Compl. ¶12). Each time Plaintiff was informed that the security checks were still pending.

Plaintiff was informed that no further administrative processing of his naturalization petition would

occur until such security checks were complete. Id.; Compl. Exh. C. 

Pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. §701 et seq, Plaintiff seeks to compel

Defendants to timely adjudicate his application for naturalization. Defendants first contend that the

court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and second, assuming jurisdiction, the court should remand the

petition to USCIS for adjudication. Plaintiff opposes the motion.

DISCUSSION

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Defendants contend that the APA does not apply to Plaintiff’s claim because Plaintiff cannot

establish that he has suffered any legal wrong within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. §702. This argument

is not persuasive.

In order to obtain judicial review under 5 U.S.C. §702, an individual must identify some

“agency action” that affects him in a specified fashion and must show that he has suffered legal wrong

because of the challenged agency action or is adversely affected or aggrieved by that action within the

meaning of a relevant statute. Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 497 U.S. 871, 882 (1989).

Plaintiff satisfies this standard. USCIS is obligated to make a determination on a naturalization

application within 120 days after it conducts a naturalization examination. 8 U.S.C. §1447(b). If the

USCIS fails to comply with this time period, the applicant may apply to the federal district court for

the district in which the applicant resides for a hearing on the matter. Id. The district court may then

determine the matter or remand it to USCIS, with appropriate instructions. Id. 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 3:07-cv-00124-JM-AJB Document 11 Filed 05/31/07 Page 2 of 4
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

 The court notes that subject matter jurisdiction is also appropriate if a case falls within an

express congressional grant of jurisdiction. See Missouri ex rel. Missouri Highway & Transp.

Comm’n v. Cuffley, 112 F.3d 1332, 1334 (8th Cir. 1998). Here, 8 U.S.C. §1447 provides such an

express grant of jurisdiciotn.

- 3 - 07cv0124

Here, Plaintiff’s examination occurred on March 2, 2006 and Defendants failed to comply with

the 120 period of 8 U.S.C. §1447(b). Accordingly, Plaintiff has suffered a legal wrong on account of

agency inaction and is aggrieved thereby.1

In sum, the court has subject matter jurisdiction over the present controversy.

The Motion to Remand

Under 8 U.S.C. §1447(b) this court has jurisdiction to either (1) make its own determination

as to whether Plaintiff has satisfied all of the requirements for citizenship or (2) remand the matter to

USCIS with instructions to conclude its processing of the Form N-400. 8 U.S.C. 1447(b); United

States v. Hovesepian, 359 F.3d 11444, 1160 (9th Cir. 2004). 

A lawful permanent resident alien is eligible for naturalization as a United States citizen if he

or she (1) satisfies a five-year statutory residency requirement; (2) has resided continuously in the

United States from the date of the application to the time of admission as a citizen; and (3) is of good

moral character. 8 U.S.C. § 1427(a). The applicant first files a Form N-400 application for

naturalization. 8 U.S.C. § 1445(a); 8 C.F.R. §§ 334.2, 316.4. USCIS then conducts a background

investigation of the applicant, including a review of immigration and police records. 8 U.S.C. §

1446(a); 8 C.F.R. § 335.1. At a minimum, the background investigation includes “ 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 five years

immediately preceding the filing of the application.” 8 C.F.R. §335.1. Lastly, the applicant is

interviewed by an examiner who is authorized to grant or deny the application. 8 U .S.C. § 1446(d);

8 C.F.R. § 335.3.

Applying the above statutory provisions, USCIS must make a determination on a naturalization

application pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1446 within 120 days after it conducts a naturalization examination.

8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). If it fails to do so, the applicant may apply to the federal district court for the

district in which the applicant resides for a hearing on the matter. Id. The district court assumes

Case 3:07-cv-00124-JM-AJB Document 11 Filed 05/31/07 Page 3 of 4
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 - 07cv0124

jurisdiction over the matter and may either determine the matter or remand it, with appropriate

instructions, to USCIS. Id.

The court concludes that remand, with instructions, is appropriate for several reasons. First,

the executive branch is in a better position than this court to oversee Plaintiff’s background

investigation, compile an administrative record, and to consistently apply the immigration laws. See

I.N.S. v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16 (2002) (“Generally speaking, a court . . . should remand a case to

an agency for decision of a matter that statutes place primarily in agency hands.”); Shalabi v.

Gonzales, 2006 WL 3032413 (E.D. Mo. 2006). The USCIS conducts several forms of security and

background checks to determine whether the applicant is eligible for naturalization and that the

individual does not present a risk to national security or public safety. (Porto Decl. ¶3). The

background check involves records from more than twenty federal agencies. Id. Given the expertise

of USCIS, their decisions are entitled to substantial deference. I.N.S. v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S.

421, 445 n.30 (1987). Second, the court is hesitant to compel the FBI and other federal agencies to

complete background checks required to finalize the naturalization process because to do so could

delay the administrative processing of other applicants for naturalization who have waited longer than

Plaintiff for completion of the required background investigations. The filing of a complaint for

mandamus should not result in one applicant moving up the queue to the detriment of the other

applicants for naturalization. Finally, Plaintiff is not without a judicial remedy. In the event

Plaintiff’s application is denied, or USCIS fails to complete its background investigation within the

below instructed 120 day period, he may return to court for review. See 8 U.S.C. §1421(c).

In sum, the court remands this action to USCIS for adjudication of Plaintiff’s application for

naturalization. USCIS is instructed to complete the required investigations as expeditiously as

possible but in any event not more than 120 days after the date of entry of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 31, 2007

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All Parties 

Case 3:07-cv-00124-JM-AJB Document 11 Filed 05/31/07 Page 4 of 4