Free Answer to Complaint - District Court of California - California

Case 5:07-cv-02819-RS

Document 7

Filed 07/31/2007

Page 1 of 4

1 SCOTT N. SCHOOLS, SCSBN 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 Attorneys for Respondents 8 9 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION ) ) Petitioner, ) No. C 07-2819 RS ) v. ) ) ANSWER FRANK SICILIANO, in his Official Capacity, ) Office in Charge, U.S. Citizenship and ) Immigration Services, U.S. Department of ) Homeland Security, San Jose, California, et al., ) ) Respondents. ) ) Respondents hereby submit their answer to Petitioner's Petition for Naturalization Pursuant to 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055 San Francisco, California 94102 Telephone: (415) 436-6915 FAX: (415) 436-6927

12 AMIR HOSSEIN MOTTAEZ BARZANI, 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). 21 22 INTRODUCTION 1. Paragraph One consist solely of petitioner's conclusions of law for which no answer is

23 necessary, but insofar as answers may be deemed necessary, the allegations in Paragraph One are 24 denied. 25 2. Respondent admit that petitioner filed his application on January 6, 2004 and it is still

26 pending. The remaining allegations consist of petitioner's conclusions of law for which no 27 answer is necessary, but insofar as answers may be deemed necessary, the remaining allegations in 28 Paragraph Two are denied. ANSWER C 07-2819 RS

Case 5:07-cv-02819-RS

Document 7

Filed 07/31/2007

Page 2 of 4

1

3. Respondents admit the allegations in Paragraph Three with the exception that the petitioner

2 filed his application on December 26, 2002, and he passed the English and Civics portion of the 3 interview. The examination process is still ongoing. 4 4. Respondents are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in

5 Paragraph Four. 6 7 8 5. Respondents admit only that the naturalization application is still pending. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. Paragraph Six consists of petitioner's allegation regarding jurisdiction, to which no

9 responsive pleading is required; however, to the extent a responsive pleading is deemed necessary, 10 respondents deny that this Court has jurisdiction under any of the provisions cited in Paragraph 11 Six. 12 7. Paragraph Seven consists of petitioner's allegations regarding venue, to which no

13 responsive pleading is required. 14 15 16 PARTIES 8. Respondents admit the allegations in Paragraph Eight. 9. Respondents admit the allegations in Paragraph Nine with the exception that Frank

17 Siciliano is the Field Office Director. 18 10. Respondents admit the allegations in Paragraph Ten with the exception that Rosemary

19 Melville is the District Director of District 21 which oversees the San Jose Field Office. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 11. Respondents admit the allegations in Paragraph Eleven. 12. Respondents admit the allegations in Paragraph Twelve. 13. Respondents admit the allegations in Paragraph Thirteen. 14. Respondents admit the allegations in Paragraph Fourteen. FACTS 15. Respondents admit the allegations in Paragraph Fifteen. 16. Respondents admit the allegations in Paragraph Sixteen. 17. Respondents admit the allegations in Paragraph Seventeen with the exception that the

28 application was filed on December 26, 2002. ANSWER C 07-2819 RS

Case 5:07-cv-02819-RS

Document 7

Filed 07/31/2007

Page 3 of 4

1

18. Respondents admit that the petitioner completed the English and Civics portion of the

2 interview. The examination is still ongoing. 3 19. Respondents are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in

4 Paragraph Nineteen. 5 20. Respondents admit that over 120 days have elapsed since the interview. The examination

6 process is still ongoing. 7 8 CAUSE OF ACTION 21. Respondents incorporate its responses to Paragraph One through Twenty as if set forth

9 fully herein. 10 22. The allegations contained in Paragraph Twenty-Two consist solely of petitioner's

11 conclusions of law for which no answer is necessary; however, to the extent a response is deemed 12 to be required, respondents deny the allegations in this paragraph. 13 14 PRAYER FOR RELIEF The remaining paragraph consists of petitioner's prayer for relief, to which no admission or

15 denial is required; to the extent a responsive pleading is deemed to be required, respondents deny 16 these paragraphs. 17 18 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The court should dismiss the petition under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) because petitioner fails

19 to state a claim upon relief may be granted. 20 21 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The court should dismiss the petition under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter

22 jurisdiction. 23 24 WHEREFORE, respondents pray for relief as follows: That judgment be entered for respondent and against petitioner, dismissing petitioner's petition

25 with prejudice; that petitioner take nothing; and that the Court grant such further relief as it deems 26 just and proper under the circumstances. 27 28 ANSWER C 07-2819 RS

Case 5:07-cv-02819-RS

Document 7

Filed 07/31/2007

Page 4 of 4

1 Dated: July 31, 2007 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 ANSWER C 07-2819 RS

Respectfully submitted, SCOTT N. SCHOOLS United States Attorney /s/ EDWARD OLSEN Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for Respondents