Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00495/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00495-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Immigration and Naturalization Service
Respondent
Idowu Olukoya
Petitioner

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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Idowu Olukoya,

Petitioner, No. Civ. S 05-0495 FCD PAN P

vs. Findings and Recommendations

Immigration and Naturalization

Service,

Respondent.

-oOoMarch 11, 2005, petitioner requested this court adjudicate

his naturalization application. 

He alleges he filed a naturalization application in March or

April 2002, appeared for his initial interview in December 2002

and was told a second interview would be scheduled. More than

120 days passed with no determination and thus petitioner

commenced this action. See 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) (“If there is a

failure to make a determination . . . before the end of the 120-

Case 2:05-cv-00495-FCD-PAN Document 11 Filed 11/23/05 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

2

day period after the date on which the examination is conducted.

. . the applicant may apply to the . . . district court for a

hearing on the matter.”) 

April 18, 2005, petitioner filed a notice to serve an

interlocutory injunction prohibiting respondent from conducting

any removal proceedings. 

June 1, 2005, the court served petitioner’s request for

adjudication and notice re interlocutory injunction on the United

States Attorney and ordered an answer.

June 24, 2005, respondent moved to dismiss this proceeding

as moot, on the ground the Citizenship and Immigration Services

division of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (CIS) denied

petitioner’s application for naturalization June 15, 2005. The

agency purported to deny the application on the ground removal

proceedings against petitioner had commenced April 6, 2005. 

Section 1447(b) is a jurisdiction-stripping statute granting

this court exclusive jurisdiction over naturalization

applications on which the INS fails to act within 120 days if the

applicant properly invoked the court’s authority. United States

v. Hovsepian, 359 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2004). Thus, it appears

from the present record CIS lacked jurisdiction June 15, 2005,

and thus its “denial” does not render this action moot. 

Accordingly, the court hereby recommends respondent’s June

24, 2005, motion to dismiss be denied and it be required to file

and serve a response to petitioner’s request for adjudication. 

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), these

Case 2:05-cv-00495-FCD-PAN Document 11 Filed 11/23/05 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

3

findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to this case. Written objections may be

filed within 10 days of service of these findings and

recommendations. The document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district

judge may accept, reject, or modify these findings and

recommendations in whole or in part.

Dated: November 22, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00495-FCD-PAN Document 11 Filed 11/23/05 Page 3 of 3