Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01257/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01257-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Soe Min Han
Petitioner
Monica E. Toro
Respondent
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
Respondent

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SOE MIN HAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

MONICA E. TORO (Sacramento 

Field Office Director and/or 

District Director); and 

UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND 

IMMIGRATION SERVICES,

Defendants.

No. 2:16-cv-01257-JAM-KJN

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 

TO REMAND

 

I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This case arises from an immigration hearing before the 

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”).1 

After USCIS denied Plaintiff Soe Min Han’s naturalization 

application, Han filed this action seeking review by this Court 

of that denial. Pet., ECF No. 1, at 1. Defendants Monica E.

Toro and USCIS move for remand. Mot., ECF No. 8, at 1. 

 

1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without 

oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was 

scheduled for October 4, 2016.

Case 2:16-cv-01257-JAM-KJN Document 18 Filed 10/06/16 Page 1 of 3
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

Defendants want the agency, rather than this Court, to reopen and 

readjudicate Han’s naturalization application. See id. 

I. OPINION

Defendants have offered no legal basis for remand. Section 

1421(c) makes clear that a district court “shall,” at a 

petitioner’s request, “conduct a hearing de novo on the [denied 

naturalization] application.” See Immigration and Nationality 

Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1421 (2012). Defendants argue that a sister 

statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), gives this Court discretion to 

remand, but that provision is inapposite: that statute applies 

only when the agency has not made a decision. See Immigration 

and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1447 (2012) (“[i]f there is a 

failure to make a determination...[the district court] may either 

determine the matter or remand”). Yet, here, the USCIS has twice 

denied Han’s application. See Opp., ECF No. 10, at 4. 

Defendants’ admission that they move “in an abundance of 

caution,” Mot. at 1, further compels this Court to deny remand. 

See U.S. Const. art. III; Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 96 (1968) 

(“federal courts will not give advisory opinions”) (internal 

citation and quotation marks omitted). In sum, under § 1421(c) 

this Court has exclusive jurisdiction to review de novo Han’s 

denied naturalization application. 

Finally, in his opposition to the remand motion, Han 

requests that this Court make “clear” in its Order that “the 

[USCIS] is not free to proceed” with an administrative hearing. 

See Surreply, ECF No. 12-1, at 3. Han’s “request” is

procedurally improper and he must file a motion for injunctive 

Case 2:16-cv-01257-JAM-KJN Document 18 Filed 10/06/16 Page 2 of 3
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

relief if he wants this issue resolved. 

II. ORDER

This Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion to Remand and DENIES 

Plaintiff’s request to make clear that the Defendants cannot 

reopen and reconsider Han’s case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 5, 2016

Case 2:16-cv-01257-JAM-KJN Document 18 Filed 10/06/16 Page 3 of 3