Han v. Toro et al

Filing 18

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 10/5/16 DENYING 8 Motion to Remand and DENIES Plaintiff's request to make clear that the Defendants cannot reopen and reconsider Han's case. (Washington, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SOE MIN HAN,

12

15
16

2:16-cv-01257-JAM-KJN

Plaintiff,

13
14

No.

v.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO REMAND

MONICA E. TORO (Sacramento
Field Office Director and/or
District Director); and
UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION SERVICES,

17

Defendants.

18
19
I.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

20
This case arises from an immigration hearing before the
21

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). 1

22
After USCIS denied Plaintiff Soe Min Han’s naturalization
23
application, Han filed this action seeking review by this Court
24
of that denial.

Pet., ECF No. 1, at 1.

Defendants Monica E.

25
Toro and USCIS move for remand.

Mot., ECF No. 8, at 1.

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 October 4, 2016.
1

1

Defendants want the agency, rather than this Court, to reopen and

2

readjudicate Han’s naturalization application.

See id.

3
4

I.

OPINION

5

Defendants have offered no legal basis for remand.

Section

6

1421(c) makes clear that a district court “shall,” at a

7

petitioner’s request, “conduct a hearing de novo on the [denied

8

naturalization] application.”

See Immigration and Nationality

9

Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1421 (2012).

Defendants argue that a sister

10

statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), gives this Court discretion to

11

remand, but that provision is inapposite:

12

only when the agency has not made a decision.

13

and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1447 (2012) (“[i]f there is a

14

failure to make a determination...[the district court] may either

15

determine the matter or remand”).

16

denied Han’s application.

17

Defendants’ admission that they move “in an abundance of

18

caution,” Mot. at 1, further compels this Court to deny remand.

19

See U.S. Const. art. III; Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 96 (1968)

20

(“federal courts will not give advisory opinions”) (internal

21

citation and quotation marks omitted).

22

this Court has exclusive jurisdiction to review de novo Han’s

23

denied naturalization application.

24

that statute applies
See Immigration

Yet, here, the USCIS has twice

See Opp., ECF No. 10, at 4.

In sum, under § 1421(c)

Finally, in his opposition to the remand motion,

Han

25

requests that this Court make “clear” in its Order that “the

26

[USCIS] is not free to proceed” with an administrative hearing.

27

See Surreply, ECF No. 12-1, at 3.

28

procedurally improper and he must file a motion for injunctive
2

Han’s “request” is

1

relief if he wants this issue resolved.

2
3
4

II.

ORDER

This Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion to Remand and DENIES

5

Plaintiff’s request to make clear that the Defendants cannot

6

reopen and reconsider Han’s case.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

Dated: October 5, 2016

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3