Rashid v. Johnson, et al

Filing 19

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 4/19/17 ORDERING the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Remand. The matter is remanded to USCIS with instructions to reopen and complete adjudication within 60 days from the date of this order. The parties are further ordered to file a joint status report within five days of completion of the adjudication by USCIS. All filing deadlines are suspended and this case is stayed pending an order from the Court to reopen or dismiss this action. CASE CLOSED. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

BABAR RASHID,

13

2:14-cv-2109-JAM-KJN

Plaintiff,

14
15

No.

v.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR REMAND

16

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY, John F. Kelly,
Secretary; et al.,

17

Defendants.

18
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for

19
20

Remand, requesting remand of this matter to the United States

21

Citizenship and Immigration Services for adjudication.

22

reasons set forth below, the Court grants Defendants’ motion. 1

For the

23
I.

24

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Babar Rashid (“Plaintiff”) filed his complaint in September

25
26
27
28

1

This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without
oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was
scheduled for April 18, 2017.
1

1

2014 seeking a hearing on his naturalization application after

2

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”)

3

failed to adjudicate his application within one hundred and

4

twenty days of his interview, which occurred on September 20,

5

2012.

6

M. Leonis (“Leonis Decl.”), ECF No. 15-1, at ¶ 4.

7

later, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation informing the Court

8

that Plaintiff had been referred into removal proceedings and

9

requesting that the matter be held in abeyance pending resolution

Compl. at ¶¶ 1, 16, & 24, Exh. D; Declaration of Francine
Two months

10

of the removal proceedings.

11

abeyance and ordered future status reports.

12

ECF Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, & 14.

13

removal proceedings had terminated and the Court gave the parties

14

until February 6, 2017, to file a status report.

15

14.

16

which Plaintiff opposes.

ECF No. 6.

The Court granted the
ECF No. 7; see also

As of December 30, 2016,

ECF Nos. 13 &

On the status date, Defendants filed the present motion,
ECF Nos. 15 & 16.

17
18
19

II.

OPINION

When USCIS fails to make a determination on an application

20

for naturalization “before the end of the 120-day period after

21

the date on which the examination is conducted under [8 U.S.C.

22

§ 1446], the applicant may apply to the United States district

23

court for the district in which the applicant resides for a

24

hearing on the matter.”

25

(USCIS is responsible for adjudicating naturalization petitions).

26

The district court then “has [exclusive] jurisdiction over the

27

matter and may either determine the matter or remand the matter,

28

with appropriate instructions, to the Service to determine the

8 U.S.C. § 1447(b); 6 U.S.C. § 271(b)(2)

2

1

matter.”

2

2004).

3

Id.; U.S. v. Hovsepian, 359 F.3d 1144, 1164 (9th Cir.

Defendants ask the Court to remand the case to USCIS with

4

instructions to adjudicate within sixty days.

5

declaration that states USCIS is ready to move forward with

6

adjudication and resolve the application within that sixty day

7

time frame.

8

appropriate because USCIS has the necessary expertise and is

9

uniquely suited to determine naturalization eligibility.

Leonis Decl. ¶¶ 12, 14. 2

They submit a

They argue that remand is

Mot. at

10

2.

11

denied, Plaintiff can return to the district court to seek de

12

novo review of that decision.

13

Defendants point out that even if Plaintiff’s application is

Mot. at 3; 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c).

Plaintiff asks the Court to deny the motion and issue a

14

scheduling order for adjudication of Plaintiff’s application.

15

Plaintiff states that, due to the delay and Defendants’ actions,

16

he believes his application has been subject to review under a

17

secret program called the Controlled Application Review and

18

Resolution Program or “CARRP.”

19

Opposition primarily addresses the legality of CARRP.

20

5.

21

Opp. at 2–3.

Plaintiff’s
Id. at 3–

Under similar circumstances, the majority of district courts

22

have remanded the case to USCIS for adjudication.

Manuilit v.

23

Majorkas, No. 3:12-cv-04501-JCS, 2012 WL 5471142, at *3 (N.D.

24

Cal. Nov. 9, 2012).

These courts have reasoned that USCIS is

25
2

26
27
28

This declaration does not include the language “I declare under
penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct . . .”
required by 28 U.S.C. § 1746. Plaintiff has not objected to the
declaration, however, and the Court will not strike it absent
such objection.
3

1

better equipped to handle these cases and has more expertise than

2

district courts in adjudicating applications.

3

Chertoff, No. C 06-7697 SI, 2007 WL 1501736, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May

4

22, 2007).

5

See, e.g., Deng v.

Although Plaintiff’s application had been pending for nearly

6

two years when Plaintiff filed his complaint, remand is the

7

appropriate course of action in this case.

8

this area and assurances that the matter will be adjudicated

9

quickly upon remand warrant such action.

USCIS’s expertise in

In the few cases where

10

a district court opted to adjudicate the matter itself, the

11

application had been pending for a lengthy period and the

12

defendants failed to assure the court that a swift decision could

13

be made on remand.

14

2007 WL 1031333, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2007) (“Plaintiff’s

15

application has been pending for thirty-five months . . . and

16

Defendants have provided no indication when action might be taken

17

on her application.”); Lifshaz v. Gonzales, No. C 06-1470 MJP,

18

2007 WL 1169169 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 19, 2007) (setting an

19

evidentiary hearing for a naturalization application where the

20

defendant contended it could not make a decision on the

21

plaintiff’s naturalization because the FBI had not completed a

22

namecheck on the plaintiff; permitting the defendant to file a

23

motion to remand if it determined it was ready to make a decision

24

on the application before the hearing).

25

can expect a resolution within sixty days of this order.

26

Furthermore, Plaintiff provides no legal basis for this Court to

27

adjudicate the application due to Plaintiff’s suspicion that his

28

application has been subject to additional scrutiny under CARRP.

See Astafieva v. Gonzales, No. C 06-04820 JW,

4

Here, however, Plaintiff

1

Such suspicions do not warrant retention given the present

2

circumstances.

3
4
5

III.

ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS

6

Defendants’ Motion to Remand.

The matter is remanded to USCIS

7

with instructions to reopen and complete adjudication within 60

8

days from the date of this order.

9

ordered to file a joint status report within five days of

The parties are further

10

completion of the adjudication by USCIS.

11

are suspended and this case is stayed pending an order from the

12

Court to reopen or dismiss this action.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 19, 2017

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5

All filing deadlines