UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

MAZEN SHWEIKA, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 09-cv-11781 

v. Honorable Thomas L. Ludington 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY and 

UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND 

IMMIGRATION SERVICE, 

 Defendants. 

_______________________________________/ 

ORDER HOLDING MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEY FEES IN ABEYANCE 

Mazen Mohammad Shweika originally filed his petition for naturalization with the 

Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) United States Citizenship and Immigration Service 

(USCIS) on April 28, 2004. Because USCIS did not address Skweika’s petition within three years, 

he filed a mandamus action in this Court. In 2008, the Court remanded to USCIS for a decision. 

Shweika v. Cannon, No. 1:07-cv-10870 (E.D. Mich. 2008). On May 29, 2008, USCIS denied 

Shweika’s naturalization petition, concluding that he lacked the requisite “good moral character.” 

Shweika then sought administrative review of that decision. Ten months passed without USCIS 

taking action on that request. Finally, Shweika filed this suit seeking a writ of mandamus directing 

UNCIS to conduct the review hearing or, alternatively, a de novo review of Shweika’s application 

pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c). A bench trial was held where Shweika was found to have the 

sufficient “good moral character” to naturalize, but the suit was dismissed after the Court 

concluded that it did not possess jurisdiction. Upon review, the Sixth Circuit determined that 

jurisdiction was present. Eventually, an order was issued which granted Shweika’s application for 

Case 1:09-cv-11781-TLL-CEB ECF No. 89, PageID.1010 Filed 11/13/17 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

naturalization and directed briefing on costs and fees. ECF No. 76. Schweika’s attorney then filed 

a motion for attorney fees. ECF No. 78. 

The Government twice sought extensions of time to respond to the motion for attorney 

fees, representing that it was exploring whether to contest the motion. ECF Nos. 80, 82. On April 

30, 2017, the Government filed a response indicating that the parties had reached agreement 

regarding payment of attorney fees and thus would not be opposing the motion. ECF No. 84. In 

email correspondence during the next several months, Schweika’s counsel represented to the Court 

that he would withdraw the motion for attorney fees once the check from the Government had 

been received. 

On October 13, 2017, Schweika filed a motion for an order compelling the Government to 

pay attorney fees. ECF No. 85. Schweika explained that the attorney fees payment had not yet 

been received and requested an order compelling the Government to pay the agreed upon amount. 

On October 18, 2017, the Government filed a response indicating that an administrative oversight 

had resulted in the payment not being processed, but that the procedure to commence payment had 

now begun. ECF No. 88. The Government further indicated that “although payments are typically 

processed within 30 days, processing can sometimes take 60 to 90 days due to internal processing 

delays, or delays attributable to outside financial institutions.” Id. at 2. The Government asked that 

the Court stay Schweika’s motion for 90 days. Schweika has not filed a reply to the Government’s 

response. Because it appears that payment is now being processed and because a Court order 

compelling payment seems unlikely to expedite the process, the Court will hold Schweika’s 

motions for payment of attorney fees in abeyance. If Schweika does not timely receive payment 

or believes that further relief is necessary, the Court will entertain further requests.1

 

1

 Given the history of unexplained delays by the Government in this suit, further delays would require significant 

justification. 

Case 1:09-cv-11781-TLL-CEB ECF No. 89, PageID.1011 Filed 11/13/17 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff Schweika’s motions for attorney fees, ECF 

Nos. 78, 85, are held in ABEYANCE.

Dated: November 13, 2017 s/Thomas L. Ludington 

 THOMAS L. LUDINGTON 

 United States District Judge 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served 

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first 

class U.S. mail on November 13, 2017. 

 s/Kelly Winslow 

 KELLY WINSLOW, Case Manager 

Case 1:09-cv-11781-TLL-CEB ECF No. 89, PageID.1012 Filed 11/13/17 Page 3 of 3