Free Motion to Dismiss - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-03455-WHA

Document 16

Filed 08/31/2007

Page 1 of 39

1 SCOTT N. SCHOOLS, SC 9990 United States Attorney 2 JOANN M. SWANSON, CSBN 88143 Assistant United States Attorney 3 Chief, Civil Division EDWARD A. OLSEN, CSBN 214150 4 Assistant United States Attorney 5 6 7 PETER D. KEISLER 8 United States Department of Justice Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division 9 ELIZABETH J. STEVENS VSBN 47445 Senior Litigation Counsel 10 Office of Immigration Litigation JEFFREY S. ROBINS NY SBN 4355244 11 Trial Attorney 12 13 14 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 17 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 18 ALIA AHMADI, et al., 19 Plaintiffs, 20 v. 21 MICHAEL CHERTOFF, et al., 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss - C-07-3455-W HA

450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055 San Francisco, California 94102 Telephone: (415) 436-6915 FAX: (415) 436-6927

P.O. Box 878, Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 Telephone: (202) 616-1246 FAX: (202) 233-0397 Attorneys for Defendants

Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. C-07-3455-WHA DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES Date: October 11, 2007 Time: 8:30 a.m. Courtroom: 9, 19th Floor

Case 3:07-cv-03455-WHA

Document 16

Filed 08/31/2007

Page 2 of 39

TABLE OF CONTENTS NOTICE OF MOTION MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 I. LEGAL AUTHORITY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 A. B. Authority To Naturalize Aliens.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Statutory Requirement to Conduct Background Investigations.. . . . . . . . . 3

II. ARGUMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 A. Plaintiffs' First Count Should Be Dismissed For Lack Of Jurisdiction, Or The Individual Plaintiffs' Claims Should Alternatively Be Remanded To USCIS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1. The Court Lacks Jurisdiction Under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) Because The Completion Of The Background Check Is A Precondition To The Running Of The 120-Day Clock. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Alternatively, The Individual Plaintiffs' Claims Should Be Remanded To USCIS Because The Court May Not Grant Citizenship Without The Benefit Of A Full And Complete Background Investigation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Plaintiffs' Claims Are Improperly Joined. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.

3. B.

Plaintiffs' Second Count Fails To State A Claim For Which Relief Can Be Granted Pursuant To The Administrative Procedures Act. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1. Plaintiffs Cannot Seek Judicial Review Under The APA Because 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) Is The Only Statute Under Which Such A Claim Can Be Asserted, And It Provides An Adequate Remedy In A Court.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Plaintiffs Cannot Seek Judicial Review Under The APA Because Defendants' Actions Are Not "Final Agency Actions.". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2.

-i-

Case 3:07-cv-03455-WHA

Document 16

Filed 08/31/2007

Page 3 of 39

3.

Plaintiffs Cannot Seek Judicial Review Under The APA Where Defendants' Actions Are Not Legally Required.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 The FBI's Procedures Do Not Violate The APA.. . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 USCIS's Procedures Do Not Violate The APA.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

4. 5. C.

Plaintiffs' Third Count Should Be Dismissed Because USCIS's Longstanding Investigation Requirements Do Not Violate The APA's Notice-and-Comment Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Plaintiffs' Fourth Count Should Be Dismissed Because Plaintiffs Do Not Assert A Protected Interest.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Plaintiffs' Requests For Injunctive Relief Should Be Dismissed. . . . . . . 22

D.

E. CONCLUSION

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

-ii-

Case 3:07-cv-03455-WHA

Document 16

Filed 08/31/2007

Page 4 of 39

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES FEDERAL CASES Abend v. MCA, Inc., 863 F.2d 1465 (9th Cir. 1988). .................................................................................. 22 Alcaraz v. Block, 746 F.2d 593 (9th Cir. 1984). .................................................................................... 19 Alkenani v. Barrows, 356 F. Supp. 2d 652 (N.D. Tex. 2005). ........................................................... 7, 11, 15 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955 (2007)................................................................................................. 5 Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997)................................................................................................... 13 Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972)................................................................................................... 21 Brown v. Duchesne, 19 How. 183,194 (1857). ............................................................................................. 8 Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348 (9th Cir. 1997). .................................................................................. 12 Damra v. Chertoff, No. 05-0929, 2006 WL 1786246 (N.D. Ohio June 23,2006)....................................... 7 Danilov v. Aguirre, 370 F. Supp. 2d 441 (E.D. Va. 2005). ................................................................... 7, 13 Davis v. Michigan Department of Treas., 489 U.S. 803 (1989)..................................................................................................... 7 Deng v. Chertof, No. C 06-7697, 2007 WL 1501736 (N.D. Cal. May 22, 2007). .................................. 9 El-Daour v. Chertoff, 417 F. Supp. 2d 679 (W.D. Pa. 2005).................................................................... 9, 11

-iii-

Case 3:07-cv-03455-WHA

Document 16

Filed 08/31/2007

Page 5 of 39

Essa v. USCIS, No. 05-1449, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38803 (D. Minn. Dec.14, 2005)............... 10, 11 FDIC v. Henderson, 940 F.2d 465 (9th Cir. 1991). .................................................................................... 22 Federenko v. U.S., 449 U.S. 490 (1981)................................................................................................... 22 Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000)................................................................................................... 22 Gunderson v. Hood, 268 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir. 2001). .................................................................................. 19 Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280 (1981)................................................................................................... 16 Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602 (1984).................................................................................................... 5 Ibrahim v. Still, 2007 WL 841790 (N.D.Cal. Mar. 30, 2007).............................................................. 10 In re Barr Laboratory, 930 F.2d 72 (D.C. Cir. 1991)...................................................................................... 17 INS v. Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415 (1999)............................................................................................. 10, 11 Jarrett v. Roser, 426 F.2d 213 (9th Cir. 1970). .................................................................................... 13 Kassemi v. Department of Homeland Security, No. 06-1010, 2006 WL 2938819 (D. N.J. Oct. 13, 2006). ......................................... 7 Khan v. Chertoff, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48937 (D. Az. July 14, 2006)............................................... 10 Khelifa v. Chertoff, 433 F. Supp. 2d 836 (E.D. Mich. 2006)..................................................................... 10 King v. St. Vincent's Hospital, 502 U.S. 215 (1991)..................................................................................................... 7 -iv-

Case 3:07-cv-03455-WHA

Document 16

Filed 08/31/2007

Page 6 of 39

Kokoszka v. Belford, 417 U.S. 642 (1974)..................................................................................................... 8 Lecky v. Gonzales, No. C 07-0007, 2007 WL 1813644 (N.D. Cal. June 22, 2007). .................................. 9 Liberty Fund, Inc. v. Chao, 394 F. Supp. 2d 105 (D.D.C. 2005). .................................................................... 17, 18 Linoz v. Heckler, 800 F.2d 871 (9th Cir. 1986). .................................................................................... 19 Martinez v. Gonzales, 463 F. Supp. 2d 569 (E.D. Va. 2006). ......................................................................... 7 Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Council, Inc. v. Norton, 336 F.3d 1094 (D.C. Cir. 2003). ................................................................................ 17 Monahan v. Dorchester Counseling Center, Inc., 961 F.2d 987 (1st Cir. 1992)...................................................................................... 15 Mustafa v. Pasquerell, 2006 WL 488399 (W.D. Tex. 2006).......................................................................... 16 Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55 (2004)..................................................................................................... 14 Nunez v. City of Los Angeles, 147 F.3d 867 (9th Cir. 1998). .................................................................................... 21 Ohio Adult Parole Authority v. Woodard, 523 U.S. 272 (1998)................................................................................................... 21 Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238 (1983)................................................................................................... 21 Orantes-Hernandez v. Thornburgh, 919 F.2d 549 (9th Cir. 1990). .................................................................................... 22 Oregon Natural Desert Association v. U.S. Forest Service, 465 F.3d 977 (9th Cir. 2006). .................................................................................... 14 Powderly v. Schweiker, 704 F.2d 1092 (9th Cir. 1983). .................................................................................. 19 -v-

Case 3:07-cv-03455-WHA

Document 16

Filed 08/31/2007

Page 7 of 39

R.T. Vanderbilt Co. v. Babbitt, 113 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 1997). .................................................................................... 5 Rivera v. Becerra, 714 F.2d 887 (9th Cir. 1983). .................................................................................... 19 Roberts v. Corrothers, 812 F.2d 1173 (9th Cir. 1987). .................................................................................... 5 Roberts v. Spaulding, 783 F.2d 867 (9th Cir. 1986). .................................................................................... 21 Shalabi v. Gonzales, 2006 WL 3032413 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 23, 2006). ........................................................... 16 San Francisco Baykeeper v. Whitman, 297 F.3d 877 (9th Cir. 2002). .................................................................................... 14 Shomberg v. United States, 348 U.S. 540 (1955)..................................................................................................... 1 Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 339 U.S. 667 (1950).................................................................................................. 13 Stock West, Inc. v. Confederated Tribes, 873 F.2d 1221 (9th Cir. 1989). .................................................................................... 5 Telecommunication Research Action Ctr. v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70 (D.C. Cir.1984). ........................................................................... 5, 17, 18 Thornhill Publishing Co. v. General Telegraph & Electrics Corp., 594 F.2d 730 (9th Cir. 1979). ...................................................................................... 5 United States v. America Trucking Ass'ns, 310 U.S. 534 (1940)..................................................................................................... 8 United States v. Fausto, 484 U.S. 439 (1988)................................................................................................... 13 United States v. Ginsburg, 243 U.S. 472 (1917)............................................................................................. 21, 22 United States v. Hovsepian, 359 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2004). .............................................................................. 6, 18 -vi-

Case 3:07-cv-03455-WHA

Document 16

Filed 08/31/2007

Page 8 of 39

United States v. Ramos, 933 F.2d 968 (11th Cir. 1991). .................................................................................. 16 Valdez v. Rosenbaum, 302 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2002). .................................................................................. 21 W. Watersheds Project v. Matejko, 468 F.3d 1099 (9th Cir. 2006). .................................................................................. 14 Walji v. Gonzales, No. 06-20937 (5th Cir. June 19, 2007)................................................................. 17 Walker v. Schmoke, 962 F. Supp. 732 (D. Md. 1997). ............................................................................... 16 Walters v. Reno, 143 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 1998). .................................................................................. 22 Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305 (1982)................................................................................................... 23 Whitman v. America Trucking Association, 531 U.S. 457 (2001)................................................................................................... 14 Yang v. California Department of Social Services, 183 F.3d 953 (9th Cir.1999). ..................................................................................... 15 STATUTES Administrative Procedure Act: 5 U.S.C. § 704................................................................................................................... 12 5 U.S.C. § 706(1).............................................................................................................. 14 Declaratory Judgement Act: 28 U.S.C. § 2201............................................................................................................... 12 Department of Commerce, Justice, and State, The Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1991: Pub. L. No. 101-515, 104 Stat. 2101, 2112 (1990).......................................................... 16

-vii-

Case 3:07-cv-03455-WHA

Document 16

Filed 08/31/2007

Page 9 of 39

Department of Commerce, Justice, and State, The Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1998: Pub. L. No. 105-119, 111 Stat. 2448 (Nov. 26, 1997). ......................................... 3, passim Homeland Security Act of 2002: Pub. L. No.107-296, § 1512(d), 116 Stat. 2135, 2310.........................................................2 Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended: Section 101(a)(24), 8 U.S.C.§§1101(a)(24)............................................................................................ 1 Section 101(f), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)................................................................................................... 4 Section 310, 8 U.S.C. § 1421....................................................................................................... 1 Section 310(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1421(a).................................................................................................. 2 Section 310(b)(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1421(b)(1). ................................................................................................. 2 Section 310(c) 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c). ................................................................................................ 2, 11 Section 316(a)(3), 8 U.S.C. § 1427(a)(3)................................................................................................... 4 Section 334, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1445.......................................................................................................... 1 -viii-

Case 3:07-cv-03455-WHA

Document 16

Filed 08/31/2007

Page 10 of 39

Section 334(b,) 8 U.S.C. §§ 1445(b). .................................................................................................... 1 Section 335(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1446...................................................................................................... 8, 18 Section 335(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1446(a). ................................................................................................ 3, 20 Section 335(a),(b),(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1446(a),(b),(c). ........................................................................................... 2 Section 335(d), 8 U.S.C. § 1446(d). .................................................................................................... 21 Section 336(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1447(a). ................................................................................................ 2, 10 Section 336(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). ......................................................................................... 1, passim 8 U.S.C. § 1571(b). .......................................................................................................... 15 Immigration Act of 1990: Pub. L. No. 101-649, § 401, 104 Stat. 4978 ("IMMACT"). .............................................. 2 Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004: Pub. L. 108-458, § 3001(g), 118 Stat. 3638 (2004). ........................................................ 16

-ix-

Case 3:07-cv-03455-WHA

Document 16

Filed 08/31/2007

Page 11 of 39

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 135 Cong. Rec. H4539-02 (July 31, 1989). ....................................................................... 2 H.R. Rep. No. 101-187 at 34 (1989)................................................................................ 10 CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS 8 C.F.R. §§ 334.11.............................................................................................................. 1 8 C.F.R. § 335 . ............................................................................................................ 2, 21 8 C.F.R § 335(a)................................................................................................................. 3 8 C.F.R. § 335.1. ................................................................................................................ 3 8 C.F.R. § 335.2(b). .............................................................................................. 3, Passim 8 C.F.R. § 335.11. .............................................................................................................. 3 8 C.F.R. § 335.13. .............................................................................................................. 3 8 C.F.R. § 336.2(b). ........................................................................................................... 2 FEDERAL REGISTER Administrative Naturalization, 56 Fed. Reg. 50,475 (Oct. 7, 1991) (codified at 8 C.F.R. §335.1)............................ 20 Information Collections Under Review, 60 Fed. Reg. 38,371 (July 26, 2005)........................................................................ 20

-x-

Case 3:07-cv-03455-WHA

Document 16

Filed 08/31/2007

Page 12 of 39

Requiring Completion of Criminal Background Checks Before Final Adjudication of Naturalization Applications, 63 Fed. Reg. 12,987 (March 17, 1998)..................................................................................................................... 20 FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1)..................................................................................................... 5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), (6). ............................................................................................ 1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 21........................................................................................................... 11

-xi-

Case 3:07-cv-03455-WHA

Document 16

Filed 08/31/2007

Page 13 of 39

1 2

NOTICE OF MOTION PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on October 11, 2007, at 8:30 a.m. or as soon thereafter as

3 the parties may be heard, Defendants Michael Chertoff, Robert S. Mueller III, Alberto Gonzales, 4 Emilio T. Gonzalez, and David Still (collectively "Defendants" or "Government") will bring for 5 hearing a motion to dismiss this action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 6 (6). The hearing will take place before the Honorable William H. Alsup, in Courtroom 9, 19th 7 Floor, 450 Golden Gate Ave., San Francisco, CA 94102. 8 This Motion is based on the Memorandum of Points and Authorities attached hereto, the

9 Declarations of Michael A. Cannon and Jonah J. Hadary, and all pleadings, papers and files in this 10 action, and such oral argument as may be presented at the hearing on the motion. 11 Respectfully submitted, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Dated: August 31, 2007 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss - C-07-3455-W HA

SCOTT N. SCHOOLS United States Attorney JOANN M. SWANSON Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Civil Division EDWARD A. OLSEN Assistant United States Attorney PETER D. KEISLER United States Department of Justice Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division ELIZABETH J. STEVENS Senior Litigation Counsel By: /s/ JEFFREY S. ROBINS Trial Attorney

Case 3:07-cv-03455-WHA

Document 16

Filed 08/31/2007

Page 14 of 39

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

Case 3:07-cv-03455-WHA

Document 16

Filed 08/31/2007

Page 15 of 39

1 2

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES Defendants Michael Chertoff, Robert S. Mueller III, Alberto Gonzales, Emilio T. Gonzalez,

3 and David Still (collectively "Defendants" or "Government"), by and through their undersigned 4 counsel, respectfully move this Court for an Order dismissing Plaintiffs' Complaint because the 5 Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims and the Complaint fails to state a 6 claim upon which relief may be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), (6). Alternatively, 7 Defendants request that the Court remand this matter to the United States Citizenship and 8 Immigration Services ("USCIS"), pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). This Motion is based on the 9 supporting declarations of Michael Cannon ("Cannon Decl.") and Jonah J. Hadary ("Hadary 10 Decl."), attached hereto as Exhibits 1 and 2, respectively.1 11 12 13 A. I. LEGAL AUTHORITY Authority To Naturalize Aliens.

Until 1990, United States District Courts sat as naturalization courts and were vested with

14 exclusive jurisdiction to review the qualifications of an applicant for naturalization and to 15 naturalize aliens as citizens of the United States. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(24), 1421(a) (repealed 16 1990); see also Shomberg v. United States, 348 U.S. 540 (1955). Under this two-tiered system, the 17 applicant submitted a preliminary naturalization application to the then Immigration and 18 Naturalization Service ("INS"), which conducted a preliminary investigation of the applicant, and 19 made a non-binding recommendation to the district court as to whether the application should be 20 approved or denied. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1445(b), 1446(b)&(d) (repealed 1990); 8 C.F.R. §§ 334.11, 21 335.11-335.13 (1990). The actual decision to approve or deny the naturalization application was 22 vested solely with the federal court, which took jurisdiction based on a petition filed by the 23 applicant and administered the oath of allegiance. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1421, 1445, 1447, 1448 24 (repealed 1990). 25 26 Defendants' declarations assist the Court in determining whether plaintiffs have indeed 27 provided sufficient factual allegations to support their assorted claims. The affidavits provide factual support regarding defendant's reasonable interpretation of the examination process, and 28 the parameters of that process.
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss - C-07-3455-W HA
1

1

Case 3:07-cv-03455-WHA

Document 16

Filed 08/31/2007

Page 16 of 39

1

In 1990, Congress enacted the Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-649, § 401, 104

2 Stat. 4978 ("IMMACT"), which overhauled the naturalization process in favor of a one-tier 3 administrative procedure. The central purpose for this shift to an administrative naturalization 4 process from a judicial one was to reduce the waiting time for eligible naturalization applicants, 5 who encountered unwarranted delays because of the two-tiered process. See 135 Cong. Rec. 6 H4539-02 (July 31, 1989). 7 Under Section 401 of IMMACT, Congress transferred the power to naturalize from the

8 district courts and vested the Attorney General ­ now the Secretary of the Department of 9 Homeland Security ("DHS")2 ­ with "sole authority to naturalize persons as citizens of the United 10 States." See Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA") § 310(a); 8 U.S.C. § 1421(a). Under the 11 administrative naturalization process, USCIS is responsible for adjudicating naturalization 12 applications, including rendering a preliminary investigation of the applicant, interviewing and if 13 necessary subpoenaing witnesses, conducting an examination, and making a determination as to 14 whether to grant or deny the application. See INA § 335(a),(b),(c); 8 U.S.C. § 1446(a),(b),(c). If 15 USCIS initially denies a naturalization application, the applicant may seek administrative review 16 of the denial by requesting a hearing before a supervisory immigration officer. INA § 336(a); 8 17 U.S.C. § 1447(a); 8 C.F.R. § 336.2(b). 18 Although vesting the primary naturalization authority with the Secretary of DHS, Congress

19 did not completely eliminate district court jurisdiction over the naturalization application process. 20 District courts may still administer the citizenship oath of allegiance. See INA § 310(b)(1); 8 21 U.S.C. § 1421(b)(1). District courts also have jurisdiction to review de novo applications for 22 naturalization denied as a result of the administrative review procedure under INA § 336(a); 8 23 U.S.C. § 1447(a). See INA § 310(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c). 24 25 26 The transfer of the former INS's naturalization functions to the newly-created DHS 27 included the transfer of the authority to naturalize from the Attorney General to the Secretary of DHS. See Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No.107-296, § 1512(d), 116 Stat. 2135, 28 2310.
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss - C-07-3455-W HA
2

2

Case 3:07-cv-03455-WHA

Document 16

Filed 08/31/2007

Page 17 of 39

1

Finally, under INA § 336(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), the provision at issue here, the applicant

2 may apply to the appropriate district court for a hearing on the naturalization application if USCIS 3 does not grant or deny the application by "the end of the 120-day period after the date on which the 4 examination is conducted under such section." In such a case, the court "may either determine the 5 matter or remand the matter, with appropriate instructions, to [USCIS] to determine the matter." 6 INA § 336(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). 7 8 B. Statutory Requirement to Conduct Background Investigations. In all petitions or applications for immigration services or benefits, USCIS conducts

9 security checks in order to enhance national security, public safety, and to ensure the integrity of 10 the immigration process. Before USCIS is permitted to adjudicate any Form N-400 naturalization 11 application, a full background investigation of the applicant must be completed. 12 In 1997, Congress mandated that the former INS "receiv[e] confirmation from the Federal

13 Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") that a full criminal background check has been completed, except 14 for those excepted by regulation as of January 1, 1997," before adjudicating a naturalization 15 application. Pub. L. No. 105-119, Title I, 111 Stat. 2448 (Nov. 26, 1997). 16 Consistent with this congressional mandate, the relevant statutory and regulatory provisions

17 require the Executive Branch to thoroughly investigate the background of every applicant for 18 citizenship in order to determine whether that applicant is eligible to be naturalized. See INA 19 § 335(a), (b), 8 U.S.C. § 1446(a), (b); see also 8 C.F.R. § 335.1 (2004). These regulations provide 20 that: 21 22 23 24 8 C.F.R. § 335.1 (2004). The regulations also specify that citizenship applicants are to be 25 interviewed only after a full background check has been completed. See 8 C.F.R. § 335.2(b) (2006). 26 While Defendants acknowledge that the interviews for each of the named Plaintiffs preceded the 27 completion of a full background check, statute and USCIS regulations still require that the FBI 28
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss - C-07-3455-W HA

Subsequent to the filing of an application for naturalization, the Service shall conduct an investigation of the applicant. The investigation shall consist, at a minimum, of 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 . . . .

3

Case 3:07-cv-03455-WHA

Document 16

Filed 08/31/2007

Page 18 of 39

1 criminal background check be completed before a naturalization application may be adjudicated. 2 See Pub. L. No. 105-119, 11 Stat. 2448; 8 C.F.R. § 335.2(b). 3 A full and complete background check is part of the inquiry into whether an applicant

4 possesses good moral character. See INA § 316(a)(3), 8 U.S.C. § 1427(a)(3). The existence of a 5 criminal background check is one of the primary means to appraise an alien's moral character. For 6 example, an alien cannot establish good moral character if he or she was convicted of certain 7 criminal offenses, including crimes involving moral turpitude. See INA § 101(f), 8 U.S.C. 8 § 1101(f). Further, USCIS conducts several forms of security and background checks on citizenship 9 applicants to ensure they are not a risk to national security or public safety. These background 10 checks include a record check of the alien made against the Department of Homeland Security's 11 ("DHS") own immigration data systems; an FBI background/fingerprint check for relevant criminal 12 history records on the alien (e.g., arrests and convictions); and a FBI name check, which is run 13 against databases containing information that is not necessarily revealed by the FBI's fingerprint 14 check. See USCIS Fact Sheet, Immigration Security Checks - How and Why the Process Words 15 (Exhibit 3); Hadary Decl. at ¶ 4. Often, these law enforcement checks reveal significant derogatory 16 information pertaining to applicants for immigration benefits, including applicants seeking 17 naturalization, which result in the alien being found ineligible for naturalization and other benefits. 18 Id. 19 At this time, FBI name checks remain pending for the naturalization applications of

20 Plaintiffs Mikulicic, Ovchinnikov, Sapozhnikov, and Taky. See Cannon Decl. at ¶¶ 40-41, 43-44; 21 Hadary Decl. at ¶¶ 13, 15, 17, 19. USCIS cannot adjudicate Plaintiffs' Applications for 22 Naturalization until USCIS receives the name check results because USCIS must verify that each 23 Plaintiff has established the good moral character requirement of naturalization, that he or she is not 24 statutorily barred from naturalization, and that he or she has not committed or been convicted of 25 certain criminal offenses, including crimes involving moral turpitude, which would also bar 26 naturalization. 27 The FBI has reported the completion of name checks for Plaintiffs Ahmadi, Petrovic, and

28 Wang. See Cannon Decl. at ¶¶ 39, 42, 45; Hadary Decl. at ¶¶ 21, 23, 25. However, USCIS must
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss - C-07-3455-W HA

4

Case 3:07-cv-03455-WHA

Document 16

Filed 08/31/2007

Page 19 of 39

1 still evaluate the results of those FBI name checks to determine whether each Plaintiff has 2 established the good moral character requirement of naturalization, that he or she is not statutorily 3 barred from naturalization, and that he or she has not committed or been convicted of certain 4 criminal offenses, including crimes involving moral turpitude, which would also bar naturalization. 5 Furthermore, only Plaintiff Ahmadi can demonstrate that the FBI reported to USCIS that her name 6 check was completed more than 120 days prior to the commencement of this action. See id. ¶ 25. 7 8 II. ARGUMENT This Court should dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and

9 Injunctive Relief and Petition for Naturalization Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) because this Court 10 lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).3 Plaintiffs have 11 the burden of establishing the jurisdiction of this Court. See Stock West, Inc. v. Confederated 12 Tribes, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989) (noting that a federal court is presumed to lack subject 13 matter jurisdiction until the contrary affirmatively appears). Even where a plaintiff's pleadings are 14 technically sufficient to establish some basis of jurisdiction, a Rule 12(b)(1) motion may also allege 15 that there is an actual lack of jurisdiction. See, e.g., Thornhill Publ'g Co. v. Gen. Tel. & Elecs. 16 Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir. 1979); Roberts v. Corrothers, 812 F.2d 1173, 1177 (9th Cir. 17 1987). In addition, dismissal for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate if 18 plaintiffs fail to provide "`grounds' of [their] `entitle[ment] to relief,'" more than mere labels, 19 conclusions, or formulaic recitations of the elements of causes of action. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 20 Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007). Because defendants challenge the jurisdiction of the Court, 21 a motion to dismiss under Rule 12 is appropriate. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 As a preliminary matter, a mandamus analysis is not required, as Plaintiff is not entitled to a writ of mandamus because such writs are "not available when review by other means is possible." Telecommunications Research & Action Center v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70, 79-80 (D.C. Cir. 1984) ("TRAC"). Here, Plaintiff is presently pursuing a similar claim under the Sect 1447(b) of the INA and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). See Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 616 (1984) (mandamus under § 1361 is "intended to provide a remedy for a plaintiff only if he has exhausted all other avenues of relief"); see also R.T. Vanderbilt Co. v. Babbitt, 113 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 1997) (analyzing claim under APA rather than mandamus).
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss - C-07-3455-W HA
3

5

Case 3:07-cv-03455-WHA

Document 16

Filed 08/31/2007

Page 20 of 39

1 2

A. Plaintiffs' First Count Should Be Dismissed For Lack Of Jurisdiction, Or The Individual Plaintiffs' Claims Should Alternatively Be Remanded To USCIS. The Court cannot exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims because the statutory requisites

3 for jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) have not been met. Thus, this case is unripe for review. 4 In the alternative, this Court should remand Plaintiffs' individual claims to USCIS for further 5 processing in light of the need to complete background checks, or the review of the results of such 6 checks, before naturalization determinations can be made on Plaintiffs' applications for 7 naturalization. 8 9 10 If USCIS fails to adjudicate a naturalization application 120 days after an "examination" 11 was conducted, a naturalization applicant may apply for a hearing before the District Court pursuant 12 to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). The court "may either determine the matter or remand the matter, with 13 appropriate instructions, to the Service to determine the matter," 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). Plaintiffs 14 claim this Court has jurisdiction over their naturalization applications because more than 120 days 15 have elapsed since each of them was initially interviewed by USCIS, regardless of the fact that their 16 background checks have not been completed, or USCIS continues to review the results of such 17 18 to naturalize them thereafter. See Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and 19 Injunctive Relief and Petition for Naturalization Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), at 25. 20 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), however, does not define "examination" for purposes of starting the 12021 day clock. In the present case, Plaintiffs invoke 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) because more than 120-days 22 have passed from the time of their naturalization interviews. Although the statute and 23 accompanying regulations make clear that the FBI criminal background check must ordinarily 24 25 While the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit appears to have 26 previously found that the 120-day period began on the date of the "INS's initial interview of the 27 applicant," United States v. Hovsepian, 359 F.3d 1144, 1161 (9th Cir. 2004), the Ninth Circuit made that determination without considering the statutory language regarding the necessity for a 28 completed background investigation.
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss - C-07-3455-W HA
4

1. The Court Lacks Jurisdiction Under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) Because The Completion Of The Background Check Is A Precondition To The Running Of The 120-Day Clock.

checks.4 Plaintiffs also claim this Court has authority to grant their naturalization applications and

6

Case 3:07-cv-03455-WHA

Document 16

Filed 08/31/2007

Page 21 of 39

1 precede the interview, USCIS conducted these Plaintiffs' interviews out of order ­ prior to 2 completion of background checks. See 8 C.F.R. § 335.2(b); Walji v. Gonzales, No. 06-20937, slip 3 op. at 5 (5th Cir. June 19, 2007) pending reh'g ("There is nothing inherently pernicious in 4 conducting the process out of order, but we will not upset the statutory and regulatory scheme 5 because things occurred out of order") (Attachment A). Even if the Court finds that the 6 "examination" in 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) is the equivalent of the naturalization interview, it would be 7 an improper construction to find that Congress understood that the "examination" would only occur 8 after the background check was complete. Here, the statutory text and structure make abundantly 9 plain that the required background investigation is a predicate to the examination described in 8 10 U.S.C. § 1447(b). Consequently, because Congress understood a completed criminal background 11 check as a precondition to an interview, and the interview as a precondition to the running of the 12 120-day clock, it follows that the completed criminal background check is also a precondition to the 13 running of the 120-day clock. Walji, No. 06-20937, slip op. at 5 (" . . . while Congress probably 14 contemplated that the examination described in § 1447 (b) would be a single event that triggered the 15 120-day time period, Congress clearly intended the FBI's security investigation to occur before that 16 examination takes place"). 17 Congress's clear intent that the background investigation be completed before adjudication

18 can take place is supported by the construction of the statute in question. The word "examination" 19 cannot be read in isolation and without regard to the other statutory provisions mandating that the 20 criminal background check precede the adjudication of a naturalization application. See Davis v. 21 Michigan Dep't of Treas., 489 U.S. 803, 809 (1989).5 "[A] statute is to be read as a whole, since 22 the meaning of statutory language, plain or not, depends on context." King v. St. Vincent's 23 Hospital, 502 U.S. 215, 221 (1991). "When `interpreting a statute, the court will not look merely to 24 A number of courts have found that Section 1447(b) does not confer jurisdiction upon the district courts absent a completed FBI background check. See, e.g., Danilov v. Aguirre, 370 26 F. Supp. 2d 441 (E.D. Va. 2005); Martinez v. Gonzales, 463 F. Supp. 2d 569 (E.D. Va. 2006); 27 Damra v. Chertoff, No. 05-0929, 2006 WL 1786246 (N.D. Ohio June 23, 2006); Kassemi v. Dep't of Homeland Security, No. 06-1010, 2006 WL 2938819 (D. N.J. Oct. 13, 2006); Alkenani 28 v. Barrows, 356 F. Supp. 2d 652 (N.D. Tex. 2005) (dismissal without prejudice). 25
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss - C-07-3455-W HA
5

7

Case 3:07-cv-03455-WHA

Document 16

Filed 08/31/2007

Page 22 of 39

1 a particular clause in which general words may be used, but will take in connection with it the 2 whole statute (or statutes on the same subject) and the objects and policy of the law, as indicated by 3 its various provisions, and give to it such a construction as will carry into execution the will of the 4 Legislature.'" Kokoszka v. Belford, 417 U.S. 642, 650 (1974) (quoting Brown v. Duchesne, 19 How. 5 183, 194 (1857)). 6 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) itself supports the view that a full background check is necessary before

7 the adjudication of a naturalization application can take place. The references to a hearing and 8 determination on a matter imply that Congress assumed that, once an examination had been 9 conducted, a sufficient record would be in place for either the district court or for the agency to 10 make a ruling on the naturalization application. Without a completed background check, however, 11 no such hearing and no such determination can be made. See 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) (". . . the applicant 12 may apply to the United States district court for the district in which the applicant resides for a 13 hearing on the matter. Such court has jurisdiction over the matter and may either determine the 14 matter or remand the matter, with appropriate instructions, to the Service to determine the matter.") 15 (emphasis added). Thus, it is impossible for a District Court to adjudicate naturalization 16 applications where USCIS has conducted premature interviews where the background checks have 17 not been completed, or USCIS continues to review the results of such background checks. 18 The definition of "examination" in Section 1443(a) also notes that the inquiry includes

19 "other qualifications to become a naturalized citizen as required by law." One such requirement is 20 that the FBI complete a full background check before adjudication of a naturalization application 21 can occur. 8 U.S.C. § 1446 note, Pub. L. No. 105-119, Title I, 111 Stat. 2448 (Nov. 26, 1997). 22 Therefore, Section 1443(a) firmly supports the view that "examination" means something more than 23 just the interview of an applicant. Any holding that would result in the adjudication of a 24 naturalization application prior to the completion and review of full background check would be 25 contrary to the explicit intent of Congress and would have unreasonable results. Cf., e.g., United 26 States v. Am. Trucking Ass'ns, 310 U.S. 534, 543 (1940) (statutory interpretation must avoid 27 unreasonable, futile, or absurd results). 28
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss - C-07-3455-W HA

8

Case 3:07-cv-03455-WHA

Document 16

Filed 08/31/2007

Page 23 of 39

1

Since the required security checks (that are without a statutory time restriction) have not

2 been completed with regard to Plaintiffs Mikulicic, Ovchinnikov, Sapozhnikov, and Taky, and less 3 than 120 days have passed since the FBI notified USCIS of the completion of the name checks of 4 Plaintiffs Petrovic and Wang, (1) the time allowed by law for the USCIS to adjudicate an 5 application has not yet expired and (2) this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. § 6 1447(b). Defendants recognize that more than 120 days have passed since the FBI notified USCIS 7 of the completion of Plaintiff Ahmadi's name check. While the passage of such time may allow 8 Plaintiff Ahmadi to invoke this Court's jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), Defendants maintain 9 that this Court should exercise its authority to remand Plaintiff Ahmadi's application to USCIS for 10 the completion of her examination and adjudication as discussed in the following section. 11 12 13 2. Alternatively, The Individual Plaintiffs' Claims Should Be Remanded To USCIS Because The Court May Not Grant Citizenship Without The Benefit Of A Full And Complete Background Investigation. Even if the Court finds jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), there is nothing in the

14 statutory framework that compels USCIS to adjudicate a naturalization petition within 120 days. 15 Rather, when USCIS fails to do so, the district court may either determine the matter or "remand the 16 matter, with appropriate instructions, to the Service to determine the matter." 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b); 17 see also Lecky v. Gonzales, No. C 07-0007, 2007 WL 1813644, *1 (N.D. Cal. June 22, 2007); Deng 18 v. Chertoff, No. C 06-7697, 2007 WL 1501736, *1 (N.D. Cal. May 22, 2007); El-Daour v. Chertoff, 19 417 F. Supp. 2d 679, 681-83 (W.D. Pa. 2005). Therefore, if this Court finds jurisdiction over any 20 named Plaintiff's naturalization applications, there is no obligation on its part to do more than 21 remand the application to USCIS. Thus, the Court should remand each of Plaintiffs' applications to 22 USCIS where: (1) the Court may not adjudicate a naturalization application without completion of 23 requisite background checks, and (2) courts often defer to USCIS's expertise in the adjudication of 24 naturalization applications. 25 First, if this Court assumes jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims, the Government respectfully

26 submits that the Court may not order the naturalization of Plaintiffs Mikulicic, Ovchinnikov, 27 Sapozhnikov, and Taky, whose background checks remain pending. Rather, for the reasons stated 28 below, the Court must remand Plaintiffs' cases to USCIS so their background investigations may be
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss - C-07-3455-W HA

9

Case 3:07-cv-03455-WHA

Document 16

Filed 08/31/2007

Page 24 of 39

1 completed prior to adjudication. To conduct a hearing without the completion of a background 2 check "would contravene Congress's intent that an FBI background check is to be completed prior 3 to the adjudication of every naturalization application." Essa v. USCIS, No. 05-1449, 2005 U.S. 4 Dist. LEXIS 38803, at *8 (D. Minn. Dec. 14, 2005). As previously stated, USCIS is required to 5 conduct a full criminal background check before an application can be adjudicated. See Pub. L. No. 6 105-119, Title I, 111 Stat. 2448 (Nov. 26, 1997); 8 U.S.C. § 1447(a), (b); 8 C.F.R. § 335.2(b). 7 There is no indication that, in enacting 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), Congress intended to expedite

8 the background check part of the application process and allow the adjudication of naturalization 9 applications ­ by USCIS or by the district courts ­ absent completion of the entire examination, 10 including the completion of the background checks. The use of "examination" in 8 U.S.C. 11 § 1447(b) and adjoining statutes shows that Congress intended "examination" to mean the entire 12 process of gathering and obtaining evidence for the naturalization adjudication and not merely for 13 the interview of the applicant. See INS v. Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415, 425 (1999) (judicial deference to 14 the executive branch regarding immigration issues is especially appropriate).6 15 Second, if this Court assumes jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims, the Government

16 respectfully submits that the Court should remand each named plaintiff's naturalization application 17 to USCIS in deference to the agency's expertise with respect to adjudicating the issues inherent in 18 such applications. Even in cases in which background checks have been completed during the 19 course of the litigation, many district courts have still allowed USCIS to adjudicate the application 20 on these grounds. See, e.g., Ibrahim v. Still, 2007 WL 841790, *3 (N.D.Cal. Mar. 30, 2007) 21 (discussing process of adjudicating such petitions); Khan v. Chertoff, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48937, 22 at *6 (D. Az. July 14, 2006); Khelifa v. Chertoff, 433 F. Supp. 2d 836, 845 (E.D. Mich. 2006). 23 Therefore, this Court should remand all of the named Plaintiffs' applications to USCIS with 24 25 What little legislative history exists regarding Section 1447(b) supports this view of 26 Section 1447(b). Section 1447(b) is not given any meaningful discussion in either the committee report or conference report accompanying the enactment of the Immigration Act of 1990. A 27 Committee on the Judiciary report issued the year before, however, notes that an examination should include a "full investigation of the facts," including, presumably, any background check. 28 H.R. Rep. No. 101-187 at 34 (1989).
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss - C-07-3455-W HA
6

10

Case 3:07-cv-03455-WHA

Document 16

Filed 08/31/2007

Page 25 of 39

1 instructions to complete the background security checks and adjudicate the naturalization 2 application as quickly as possible, but without further instructions. 3 Given the complex nature of the background check investigations, any deadline for the

4 conclusion of the naturalization investigation, completion of the background checks, or completion 5 of the adjudication process might well undermine the compelling governmental interests in the 6 nation's security and moral fitness of its citizenry. See e.g., El-Daour v. Chertoff, 417 F. Supp 2d 7 679 (W.D. Pa. 2005); Essa, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 388803, *8. This is so because of the reasonable 8 possibility that such investigation, checks, or adjudication will reveal information relating to the 9 plaintiffs which undermines their claims to citizenship. See Cannon Decl. at ¶¶ 21-22; Hadary Decl. 10 at ¶ 8. Limiting the time to conduct such an evaluation may require USCIS or the FBI to cut short a 11 promising lead in an ongoing investigation. As another court noted, "delays of this nature are 12 inevitable and becoming more frequent in light of heightened security concerns in the post-911 13 world." Alkenani v. Barrows, 356 F. Supp. 2d 652, 657 (N.D. Tex. 2005). 14 In addition, the Supreme Court has recognized that "judicial deference to the Executive

15 Branch is especially appropriate in the immigration context." INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415, 16 425 (1999). In this case, deference should result in the Court's remanding the case and giving 17 USCIS the broadest possible latitude in adjudicating the naturalization applications. Should 18 plaintiffs be dissatisfied with the resulting USCIS decision, they may individually return to the 19 Court for a de novo determination, after exhausting administrative remedies. See 8 U.S.C. 20 § 1421(c). In that event, the Court will have the benefit of a reasoned adjudication based upon a 21 complete record, including the results of the FBI checks. In other words, the Court should permit 22 USCIS to complete the required investigations to create records on which any review of its 23 decisions, if necessary, could be based, and to adjudicate the individual Plaintiffs' applications. 24 25 3. Plaintiffs' Claims Are Improperly Joined. Should the Court not defer to USCIS's reasonable interpretation of the statute, nor remand

26 the individual matters to USCIS for completion of the individual examinations and adjudication, the 27 Court must hold individual hearings for each named plaintiff. If the Court determines that such 28 individual hearings are necessary, the Court should sever the individual plaintiffs under Fed. R.
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss - C-07-3455-W HA

11

Case 3:07-cv-03455-WHA

Document 16

Filed 08/31/2007

Page 26 of 39

1 Civ. P. 21. See Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1350 (9th Cir. 1997) (finding joinder 2 inappropriate due to unique nature of each application). In determining whether severance is 3 appropriate, a court considers: (1) whether the claims arise out of the same transaction or 4 occurrence; (2) whether the claims present common questions of law or fact; and (3) whether 5 prejudice to a substantial right would be avoided if severance was granted. Id. (Severance 6 appropriate where each Plaintiff suffered a different duration of alleged delay, there might have 7 been numerous reasons for the alleged delay, where Plaintiffs did not allege that Defendants 8 engaged in a policy of delay, and where undue delay in one case may not have been undue delay in 9 another case.). Here, no substantial rights of the plaintiffs would be prejudiced by severance. Like 10 the claims in Coughlin, Plaintiffs' claims do not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence. 11 Rather, each application is filed separately and is independent from another. Moreover, the reasons 12 for the time necessary to complete adjudication in one case may by different in another case, and 13 therefore the claims do not involve common questions of law or fact. Id. Plaintiffs would not be 14 prejudiced by severance, as they would continue to receive the individual hearing envisioned under 15 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). 16 17 Even if the Court finds and asserts jurisdiction under Section 1447(b), none of Plaintiffs' 18 claims are amenable to resolution under the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA"), and Plaintiffs' 19 Second Count fails to state a claim and should therefore be dismissed. The APA, by its terms, 20 provides a right to judicial review of all "final agency actions for which there is no other adequate 21 remedy in a court." 5 U.S.C. § 704. Here, there is an adequate remedy at law under 8 U.S.C. 22 § 1447(b). Even if the Court finds that Section 1447(b) is inapplicable or does not provide an 23 adequate remedy, judicial review under the APA is unavailable because the actions for which 24 Plaintiffs seeks review are not final, and there is no legally required deadline for the completion of 25 26 27 28 To the extent that Plaintiffs claim jurisdiction on the basis of the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, that statute does not provide an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction; it only creates a particular kind of remedy available in actions where the district 12 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss - C-07-3455-W HA
7

B. Plaintiffs' Second Count Fails To State A Claim For Which Relief Can Be Granted Pursuant To The Administrative Procedures Act

name checks or naturalization adjudications by the FBI or USCIS.7

Case 3:07-cv-03455-WHA

Document 16

Filed 08/31/2007

Page 27 of 39

1 2 3

1. Plaintiffs Cannot Seek Judicial Review Under The APA Because 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) Is The Only Statute Under Which Such A Claim Can Be Asserted, And It Provides An Adequate Remedy In A Court. Plaintiffs cannot prevail on their APA claim alleging that Defendants have unlawfully

4 withheld or unreasonably delayed adjudication of their applications because 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), 5 which deals specifically with naturalization applications and the time necessary to complete 6 adjudication, is the only statute under which such a claim can be asserted. See United States v. 7 Fausto, 484 U.S. 439, 448-49 (1988) (general grants of jurisdiction cannot be relied upon in the face 8 of a specific statute that confers and conditions jurisdiction); Danilov, 370 F. Supp. 2d at 445 9 (finding APA inapplicable to claim that naturalization adjudication delayed in light of 8 U.S.C. § 10 1447(b)). 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) provides that the applicant may apply to the appropriate district court 11 for a hearing on the naturalization application if USCIS does not grant or deny the application by 12 "the end of the 120-day period after the date on which the examination is conducted under such 13 section." In such a case, the court "may either determine the matter or remand the matter, with 14 appropriate instructions, to [USCIS] to determine the matter." 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). Where 15 Congress specifically provided district court jurisdiction over naturalization applications 120-days 16 after the completion of USCIS's examination, any other basis of jurisdiction would contradict 17 Congressional intent. 18 19 In order for an action to be final, and thus reviewable pursuant to the APA, the action must 20 (1) "mark the `consummation' of the agency's decision-making process," and (2) the action "must 21 be one by which `rights or obligations have been determined,' or from which `legal consequences 22 will flow.'" Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 178 (1997). 23 With regard to the first prong, the question courts ask is whether the agency "has rendered its 24 25 court already has jurisdiction to entertain a suit. Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 339 26 U.S. 667, 671-72 (1950); Jarrett v. Roser, 426 F.2d 213, 216 (9th Cir. 1970). Thus, to be 27 eligible for declaratory relief, plaintiffs must first establish jurisdiction under an independent basis. Skelly Oil Co., 339 U.S. at 671-672 As discussed above, plaintiffs have failed to 28 otherwise establish jurisdiction; accordingly, the Declaratory Judgment Act is not applicable.
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss - C-07-3455-W HA

2. Plaintiffs Cannot Seek Judicial Review Under The APA Because Defendants' Actions Are Not "Final Agency Actions."

13

Case 3:07-cv-03455-WHA

Document 16

Filed 08/31/2007

Page 28 of 39

1 last word on the matter." Oregon Natural Desert Ass'n v. U.S. Forest Service, 465 F.3d 977, 984 2 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass'n, 531 U.S. 457 (2001)). With regard to a 3 naturalization application, the last word or final action is the adjudication of that application. No 4 adjudication may take place without completion of background investigation. See Pub. L. No. 1055 119, Title I, 111 Stat. 2448 (Nov. 26, 1997); 8 C.F.R. § 335.2(b). For each of the named plaintiffs, 6 USCIS has not yet completed the background investigation. Even for those Plaintiffs whose name 7 checks have been completed by the FBI, the completion of the name check by the FBI does not 8 determine a right or create an obligation, and no legal consequences flow from the FBI's completion 9 of the name checks. 10 11 Where there is no legally required deadline for the completion of adjudication nor any 12 specific requirements regarding the tracking of cases, this Court should dismiss Plaintiffs' 13 unreasonable delay claim. See Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55 (2004) 14 ("SUWA"); W. Watersheds Project v. Matejko, 468 F.3d 1099, 1110 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that "a 15 `failure to regulate' claim must be based upon a clearly imposed duty to take some discrete action.") 16 In SUWA, the Supreme Court examined, among other things, the "limits the APA places on 17 judicial review of agency inaction." SUWA, 524 U.S. at 61. Discussing 5 U.S.C. § 706(1), the 18 Court held that "the only agency action that can be compelled under the APA is action legally 19 required." Id. at 63 (emphasis in original). The Court also specifically noted that "a delay cannot 20 be unreasonable with respect to action that is not required." Id. at 64, n.1; see also San Francisco 21 Baykeeper v. Whitman, 297 F.3d 877, 885-86 (9th Cir. 2002) (finding there could be no 22 "unreasonable delay" under the APA where EPA did not have a present statutory duty to act). The 23 Court thus held that "a claim under § 706(1) can proceed only where a plaintiff asserts that an 24 agency failed to take a discrete agency action that it is required to take[,]" and, further, that "[t]he 25 limitation to required agency action rules out judicial direction of even discrete agency action that is 26 not demanded by law." Id. at 64-65. 27 28
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss - C-07-3455-W HA

3. Plaintiffs Cannot Seek Judicial Review Under The APA Where Defendants' Actions Are Not Legally Required.

14

Case 3:07-cv-03455-WHA

Document 16

Filed 08/31/2007

Page 29 of 39

1

Plaintiffs incorrectly rely on 8 U.S.C. § 1571(b) and 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) as establishing

2 deadlines for agency action. Nevertheless, the time periods mentioned in those statutes are not 3 expressed as commands to the agency, and neither statute creates a deadline for reasonableness. See 4 8 U.S.C. §§ 1447(b), 1571(b). 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), for example, merely provides a jurisdictional 5 basis through which an individual can secure judicial review. Given that a separate statute 6 precludes adjudication until the name checks are complete, it cannot be said that defendants are 7 acting unreasonably. See, e.g., Alkenani, 356 F. Supp. 2d at 657 (not unreasonable to wait for 8 results of the name check). 8 U.S.C. § 1571(b), by providing only the "sense" of the Congress, 9 provides no legally binding effect and, in any event, the large majority of applications for 10 naturalization are adjudicated within the six month period. See Yang v. California Dept. of Social 11 Services, 183 F.3d 953, 958 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Monahan v. Dorchester Counseling Center, Inc., 12 961 F.2d 987, 995 (1st Cir.1992) (holding that a sense of Congress provision neither required nor 13 prohibited action by the states or any other party and therefore "created no enforceable federal 14 rights"). 15 Even under the terms of the APA, the naturalization process has not been unreasonably

16 delayed because Congress has required name checks to be completed prior to action on a 17 naturalization application and has not provided any time limitation on completing that investigation. 18 Further, Congress has not enacted a time limit on acting on applications, it has only enacted a 19 jurisdictional provision allowing judicial review 120 days after the examination process is 20 complete. None of the relevant statutes and regulations create a mandatory deadline for defendants 21 to act and the only relevant statute says that a naturalization application cannot be adjudicated until 22 the name check process has been completed. Accordingly, the length of time that certain 23 individuals face pending adjudication of their naturalization applications is reasonable. 24 Furthermore, none of the relevant statutes and regulations mandate how Defendants should manage 25 the name check process nor the greater adjudicatory process for naturalization applications. 26 With specific regard to Defendant FBI, Plaintiffs have not, and indeed cannot, identify any

27 statute that imposes a mandatory duty upon the FBI to conduct background investigations in relation 28 to plaintiffs' applications for naturalization, let alone to complete such investigations within any
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss - C-07-3455-W HA

15

Case 3:07-cv-03455-WHA

Document 16

Filed 08/31/2007

Page 30 of 39

1 particular time frame. See, e.g., Shalabi v. Gonzales, 2006 WL 3032413, at *5 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 23, 2 2006) ("There is no statute or regulation which imposes a deadline for the FBI to complete a 3 criminal background check."). In addition, the statute requiring that USCIS complete a criminal 4 background check -- which includes the name check -- does not contain any specific time frame for 5 the FBI's investigation regarding the requested name checks. See Pub. L. 105-119, Tit. I, 111 Stat. 6 2448 (Nov. 26, 1997); see also Mustafa v. Pasquerell, 2006 WL 488399 at *5 (W.D. Tex. 2006) 7 (rejecting APA claim against USCIS to complete adjudication of immigration petition where "no 8 statute or regulation specifies a time period within which USCIS must act").8 Thus, no statutory or 9 regulatory authority limits the FBI's discretion in how it completes a plaintiff's background check, 10 let alone how much time the FBI should allow for thoroughly completing this important task. 11 The extent of the FBI's discretion in conducting USCIS-requested name checks is

12 underscored by recent legislation seeking to reduce the length of personnel-related background 13 checks. See, e.g., Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Pub. L. 108-458, 14 § 3001(g), 118 Stat. 3638 (2004) (requiring the FBI to complete name checks regarding hiring 15 candidates within 60 days if practical to do so). Had it wished to do so, Congress could have 16 imposed a duty upon the FBI to complete immigration name checks within a particular deadline, and 17 could have subjected this process to judicial review. Cf. Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280, 300 (1981) 18 ("congressional acquiescence may sometimes be found from nothing more that silence in the face of 19 an administrative policy.") (citing Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1, 11 (1965)). See also Pub. L. No. 10120 515, 104 Stat. 2101, 2112 (1990) (the FBI may establish and collect fees to process name checks for 21 [certain non-criminal, non law enforcement and other purposes] but imposing no deadlines). 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Concerning the background investigation itself, independent of the time strictures, it is well established that the courts generally have no power to order the Executive to undertake a particular investigation absent some statutory provision conferring this authority. See, e.g., United States v. Ramos, 933 F.2d 968, 971 n.1 (11th Cir. 1991) (refusing request to order investigation and holding that "[c]riminal investigations are an executive functions within the exclusive prerogative of the Attorney General's office") (citations omitted); Walker v. Schmoke, 962 F.