Mattevi v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Services

Filing 10

ORDER REMANDING APPLICATION FOR NATURALIZATION, granting in part and denying in part 1 Petition (Complaint) for Writ of Mandamus filed by Rodrigo Salton Mattevi Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 4/9/2015. (tm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 14-22621-Civ-COOKE
RODRIGO SALTON MATTEVI,
Plaintiff,
vs.
LINDA SWACINA, District Director, USCIA,
Miami; UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP &
IMMIGRATION SERVICES, MIAMI DISTRICT,
Defendants.
_______________________________________________/
ORDER REMANDING APPLICATION FOR NATURALIZATION
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Request for Hearing Before District
Court and Complaint for Mandamus (ECF No. 1), the Defendants’ Response to Order to
Show Cause (ECF No. 7), and Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendants’ Response to Order to Show
Cause (ECF No. 8). For the reasons provided herein, Plaintiff’s Request for Hearing Before
District Court and Complaint for Mandamus is granted in part and denied in part.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The following facts are not in dispute. Plaintiff Rodrigo Salton Mattevi (“Mr. Mattevi”
or “Plaintiff”), a Brazilian national, is a lawful permanent resident of the United States.
Compl. ¶ 1. He filed his Application for Naturalization (“Application”) on November 6, 2012
and was interviewed in connection with his application on April 2, 2013. Id. at ¶¶ 6-7. At his
interview, Plaintiff passed the tests administered to him on the subjects of English, U.S.
History and Government, but was then informed that a decision on his Application could not
be made as it required further review by a supervisor. Id. at ¶ 8. Plaintiff alleges that he was
assured that no further paperwork was necessary for his case and that his interview was
complete. However, his Application for Naturalization has now been pending for almost two
years. Id. Plaintiff further alleges that his numerous inquiries to the Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services regarding his Application have yielded no new information; he receives
responses stating only that his case is “under review.” Id. at ¶ 11.
On July 14, 2014, Plaintiff filed the instant petition, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b),

requesting that the Court adjudicate his Application for Naturalization (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff
also requested an award of costs and attorney’s fees. I issued an Order Requiring Response
(ECF No. 5) on July 18, 2014, requiring the Defendants to file a response to Plaintiff’s request
stating why the relief sought by Plaintiff should not be granted. On September 15, 2014,
Defendants filed their Response, requesting that the Court remand this matter to the United
States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) with instructions. Plaintiff, in his
Reply filed on September 18, 2014 (ECF No. 8), indicated his disagreement with the
Defendants’ request to remand his Application for further consideration. Plaintiff requests that
this Court decide his Application for Naturalization.
DISCUSSION
Federal district courts have subject matter jurisdiction over naturalization applications
in only two situations. First, if an application has been denied, an applicant may petition a
district court for a de novo review of the denial, but only “after a hearing before an immigration
officer under section 1447(a).” 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c). Second, an applicant, like Mr. Mattevi,
may petition a district court for a hearing if USCIS fails to render a decision on the application
“before the end of the 120-day period after the date on which the examination is conducted.”
8. U.S.C. § 1447(b). The district court then has jurisdiction over the naturalization application
to either “determine the matter or remand the matter, with appropriate instructions, to
[USCIS].” Id. Therefore, given that it has been over 120 days since Mr. Mattevi’s interview,
this Court has jurisdiction over his Application.
Although this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Mr. Mattevi’s Application, §
1447(b) provides that the district court has the discretion to “either determine the matter or
remand the matter [to USCIS], with appropriate instructions.” So, while I have the authority
to decide Plaintiff’s Application for Naturalization, I believe that remand is the better course at
this time, given that USCIS will be better able to, in the first instance, evaluate the information
in the Application, identify any concerns therein, and otherwise develop the record. See Silebi
De Donado v. Swacina, 486 F. Supp. 2d 1360, 1364 (S.D. Fla. 2007) (following a majority of
courts that have remanded similar cases back to the USCIS for a final determination) (citations
omitted). Additionally, should Plaintiff be dissatisfied with the decision rendered by USCIS,
he may return to this Court, after exhaustion of his administrative remedies, for a de novo
determination. 8 C.F.R. § 336.9(d).

2

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the aforementioned reasons, it is hereby ORDERED and
ADJUDGED that:
1. Plaintiff’s Request for Hearing Before District Court and Complaint for Mandamus
(ECF No. 1) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
2. This matter is REMANDED to USCIS. USCIS is directed to render a final decision on
Mr. Mattevi’s Application for Naturalization within sixty (60) days from the date of this
Order.
3. If a decision on Mr. Mattevi’s Application for Naturalization has not been issued within
sixty (60) days from the date of this Order, Mr. Mattevi shall file a notice with the
Court, setting forth the status of his Application, whereupon this Court will reopen the
case and render a decision on his Application for Naturalization.
4. All pending motions, is any, are DENIED as moot.
5. The Clerk shall ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE this case.
DONE and ORDERED in chambers at Miami, Florida, this 9th day of April 2015.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record

3