Douandju v. Crawford et al

Filing 40

ORDER granting 30 Motion to Remand signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 9/7/2016. CASE REMANDED to USCIS. Case is to remain open. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

WILLIAM DOUANDJU,
Plaintiff,

10
v.

11
12

JONATHAN CRAWFORD, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-1493 EPG

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO REMAND

(Doc. 30)

16
17

I.

Introduction

18

On September 24, 2016, Plaintiff, William Douandju (“Plaintiff”), appearing pro se,

19

filed a complaint alleging Defendants Jonathan Crawford, et al., (“Defendants”) failed to

20

timely process his naturalization application (“N-600”) and requests that the Court adjudicate

21

the application pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). (Doc. 1). On June 27, 2016, Defendants filed a

22

Motion to Remand Plaintiff’s case to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

23

(“USCIS”) so that the agency may adjudicate the application.1 (Doc. 30). Plaintiff did not file a

24

written opposition to the motion, however, the Court held hearings on August 18, 2016 (Docs.

25

35-36) and on September 1, 2016 (Doc. 38). Government counsel and Plaintiff appeared

26
1

27
28

This case was stayed several months (Doc. 21) because Plaintiff was placed in removal proceedings on December
11, 2104, which divested this Court of jurisdiction to adjudicate Plaintiff’s naturalization application. De Lara
Bellajardo v. Schiltgen, 378 F.3d 1042, 1046-47 (9th Cir. 2004) (when removal proceedings are pending, district
courts retain only limited jurisdiction to review a denial of naturalization by USCIS, but not to adjudicate the merits
of the petition in the first instance).

3

1

telephonically at both hearings and the Court heard oral argument. Upon consideration of the

2

pleadings and arguments, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion.

3

II.

4

Defendants argue that remand is appropriate, in part, because there is an outstanding

5
6
7
8

Discussion

issue regarding Plaintiff’s identity. At the time Plaintiff filed his application to become a legal
permanent resident, he presented a birth certificate reflecting his date of birth as May 21, 1978.
Later when applying for naturalization, he submitted a birth certificate indicating that his date of
birth was May 21, 1985. Declaration of Aggie Verboon, Senior Immigration Services Officer,

9
dated August 30, 2016. (Doc. 37-1). Given the filing of two different birth certificates, the
10
11
12
13
14

government argues that the agency is in the best position to adjudicate the application. If the
application is denied, Plaintiff may file another lawsuit in district court under 8 U.S.C. U.S.C. §
1421(c), and review of that agency denial
would be de novo. The Court will have the benefit of the agency’s decision in considering any

15

appeal. Plaintiff opposes the remand arguing that USCIS has taken too long to process his

16

application and requests that the Court adjudicate his N-600 in the instant proceedings.

17

8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) grants the Court authority to make a judicial determination of

18

naturalization or remand the matter to USCIS with instructions to adjudicate. 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b)

19

(the court has jurisdiction over the matter and may remand the matter, with appropriate

20

instructions, to the [USCIS] to determine the matter). The decision whether to remand is entirely

21

within this Court’s discretion. U.S. v. Hovsepian, 359 F.3d 1144, 1161 (9th Cir. 2004). Given

22

the unique circumstances presented here, the Court finds that remand to the agency is appropriate

23

as USCIS is uniquely situated to apply its expertise in immigration matters to the adjudication of

24

this application. INS v. Orlando Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 17 (2002).

25
26
27
28

III.

Order

As outlined above, Defendant’s Motion to Remand (Doc,. 30) is GRANTED. Pursuant
to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), the matter is remanded to USCIS with instructions to complete
adjudication within 60 days from the date of this order.
3

1

USCIS is directed to file a status report advising the Court of the outcome of the

2

adjudication, including a copy of any decision by November 9, 2016. All other deadlines are

3

suspended until that date. A further status conference is set for November 14, 2016, at 8:30

4

a.m. The parties may appear telephonically. To do so, each party is directed to use the following

5

dial-in number and passcode: 1-888-251-2909; passcode 1024453.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

Dated:

September 7, 2016

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3