Mohammad v. Mukasey et al

Filing 71

FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION - The Government's motion to dismiss 66 should be granted. Objections to the Findings and Recommendation are due by 11/2/2009. If objections are filed, a party may file a response to those objections within fourteen days of being served with a copy of those objections. Signed on 10/19/09 by Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta. (peg)

Download PDF
IN T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S D I S T R I C T C O U R T F O R T H E D I S T R I C T OF O R E G O N JAWDATK. MOHAMMAD, Petitioner, v. E R I C H O L D E R , JR., A t t o r n e y General o f t h e U n i t e d States; R O B E R T S S. M U E L L E R III, D i r e c t o r , F e d e r a l B u r e a u o f Investigation; M I C H A E L A. C A N N O N , Chief, National N a m e c h e c k S e c t i o n o f the Federal B u r e a u o f Investigation; J A N E T N A P O L I T A N O , Secretmy o f H o m e l a n d Security; M I C H A E L A Y T E S , Acting D i r e c t o r , U n i t e d States C i t i z e n s h i p and Inll11igration Services (USCIS); F. G E R A R D H E I N A U E R , Director, U S C I S Nebraska Service C e n t e r ; a n d W I L L I A M D. M c N A M E E , D i r e c t o r , U S C I S Portland, Respondents. Civ. N o . 0 8 - 6 I 7 - A C FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION hltrodllctiol1 P e t i t i o n e r J a w d a t K. M o h a m m a d ( " M o h a m m a d " ) s e e k s r e l i e f f i ' o m this court i n the form o f a declaratOly j u d g m e n t a n d injunction compelling t h e federal goverl1111ent to adjudicate h i s FINDINGS AND R E C O M M E N D A T I O N 1 {KPR} immigration status adjustment application, as well as damages for violations o f t h e Administrative Procedures Act ("APA") and M o h a m m a d ' s d u e process rights. M o h a m m a d ' s suit names as respondents Michael Mukasey, Attorney General o f the United States; R o b e r t S. Meuller III, Director o f the Federal Bureau o f Investigation ("FBI"); Michael A. Catmon, C h i e f o f the National N a m e c h e c k s e c t i o n o f t h e FBI; M i c h a e l C h e r t o f f , S e c r e t a r y o f t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f H o m e l a n d S e c u r i t y ; J o n a t h a n S c h a r f e n , A c t i n g D i r e c t o r o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C i t i z e n s h i p and I m m i g r a t i o n Services ("USCIS"); F. Gerard Heinauer, Director o f the USCIS Northern Service Center; and William D. McNamee, Director o f USCIS Portland (hereinafter collectively referred to as " t h e Govel11ment").1 The G o v e m m e n t moves to dismiss, alleging that this court lacks subject matter j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r t h e doctrine o f mootness. M o h a n m l a d opposes the m o t i o n , c l a i m i n g t h a t the action is not moot under the doctrine o f voluntary cessation. T h e G o v e m m e n t ' s m o t i o n s h o u l d b e granted b e c a u s e M o h a m m a d ' s adjustment application h a s b e e n a p p r o v e d . M o h a m m a d h a s o b t a i n e d t h e s p e c i f i c r e l i e f h e s o u g h t t h r o u g h t h i s l a w s u i t , and the a d d i t i o n a l r e m e d i e s h e s e e k s a r e e i t h e r f o r i s s u e s n o w m o o t o r f o r a c t i o n s t h a t h a v e n o t o c c u r r e d . A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e G o v e n m l e n t ' s s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t m o t i o n s h o u l d b e g r a n t e d and M o h a m m a d ' s claims s h o u l d b e dismissed. / II II I I n c a p t i o n i n g t h e i r m o t i o n to d i s m i s s o r for s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t , the G o v e r n m e n t noted: " M a r k R. Filip, Janet A. Napolitano, and Michael Aytes, replace the previously n a m e d Respondents b y designation o r appointment within their respective departments." (Respondents' Motion to Dismiss or, i n the Altemative, Motion for Smll111aty Judgment at 2.) However, the court h a s n o t r e c o g n i z e d t h e s e c h a n g e s n o r are t h e y r e f l e c t e d o n t h e official c o u r t d o c k e t sheet. I f t h e G o v e r n m e n t wishes to make official changes to t h e docket sheet and caption, they should request leave o f the c o u r t b y a n appropriate motion. FINDINGS AND R E C O M M E N D A T I O N 2 {KPR} Factual Background M o h a m m a d i s a citizen o f I r a q . (Administrative Record ("AR") 8_9.)2 H e w a s admitted to the United States as a refugee o n September 23, 1999. ( G o v e n n n e n t ("Govt.") Concise Statement o f Material Facts ( " C S M F " ) '111.) H e w a s admitted in N e w Y o r k " a s a refugee pursuant to Section 207 o f t h e I N A for an indefinite period o f t i m e . . . Employment authorized." ( A R 7 (original in all caps).) P r i o r to e n t e r i n g t h e U n i t e d States, M o h a m m a d w a s a f f i l i a t e d w i t h t h e Iraqi N a t i o n a l Congress ("INC"). (Martin Declaration ("Decl.") 'II 7.) O n a f o r m titled "Registration for Classification as Refugee," M o h a m m a d reported that h e had, at s o m e p o i n t subsequent to his s i x t e e n t h b i r t h d a y , b e e n a m e m b e r o f t h e INC. ( A R 1 5 . ) M o h a m m a d ' s " R e f u g e e A p p l i c a t i o n Worksheet" identifies the INC as M o h a m m a d ' s political group. ( A R 30.) See also A R 31 ( " [ M o h a m m a d ] started working w i t h INC . . . H e w a s the director o f m i l i t m y division and for a s h o r t t i m e t h e d i r e c t o r o f financial division."). O n D e c e m b e r 2 0 , 2 0 0 1 , USCIS received M o h a m m a d ' s a p p l i c a t i o n " f o r a d j u s t m e n t o f status to that o f a lawful p e r m a n e n t resident[.]" (Martin Decl. '14.) T h i s application is k n o w n as F o r m 1485. (Martin Decl. '114.) M o h a m m a d ' s application cited his status as a refugee as t h e " b a s i s for eligibility" for " a d j u s t m e n t to permanent resident status." ( A R 2.) I n acknowledging receipt o f this application, USCIS wrote: " I t usually takes 360 to 390 days from the date o f t h i s receipt to process this type o f case." ( M o h a m m a d C S M F '14.) USCIS " s u b mi t t e d a request for a n a m e c h e c k o f [Mohammad] to the [FBI] o n December 22, 2 T h e GoverlUnent s u b m i t t e d t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e R e c o r d a s s o c i a t e d w i t h M o h a m m a d ' s adjustment o f status application, u n d e r seal. Evelyn Martin certified t h e record documents as " o r i g i n a l s , o r c o p i e s t h e r e o f , f r o m the r e c o r d s o f U.S. C i t i z e n s h i p a n d I m m i g r a t i o n S e r v i c e , D e p m i m e n t o f H o m e l a n d Security[.]" ( A R 1.) FINDINGS A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N 3 {KPR} 2003." (Govt. C S M F 'If 3.) T h i s request w a s processed o n J u l y 5, 2007, and s u b s e q u e n t l y transmitted to US CIS o n J u l y 1 7 , 2 0 0 7 . (Mohammad C S M F 'If 24.) O n M a r c h 26, 2008, the USCIS d i r e c t e d a d j u d i c a t o r s t o " h o l d t h e a d j u d i c a t i o n o f c a s e s t h a t c o u l d b e n e f i t from t h e S e c r e t m y ' s e x p a n d e d discretionary authority under the Consolidated Appropriations A c t o f 2 0 0 8 , " including t h o s e c a s e s w h e r e t h e a p p l i c a n t i s e x c l u d e d for a f f i l i a t i o n w i t h a t e r r o r i s t o r g a n i z a t i o n , " a s d e f i n e d b y 8 U.S.C. § I 182(a)(3)(B)(vi)(Ill) (Tier I I I ) . " (Gov!. C S M F 'If 5.) M o h a m m a d filed this action o n M a y 20, 2008. (Dk!. N o . 2 . ) " O n J a n u a r y 5, 2 0 0 9 , U S C I S c o n d u c t e d a n a d j u s t m e n t i n t e r v i e w w i t h [ M o h a m m a d ] p u r s u a n t to h i s adjustment o f status application[,]" and forwarded information about M o h a m m a d to USCIS headquarters for an exemption determination." (Gov. C S M F 8-9.) T h e p a r t i e s filed simultaneous dispositive motions o n JanualY 30, 2009, and oral argument w a s scheduled for M a y 1, 2009. (Docket ("Dk!.") Nos. 36, 4 0 , 4 4 , 61.) O n April 29, 2009, notice o f t h e approval o f M o h a m m a d ' s adjustment application issued. (Defendants' M o t i o n to Dismiss as M o o t , Ex. A.) Accordingly, the parties informed the court o f this development, and the court established a briefing schedule to d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r a n y j u s t i c i a b l e i s s u e s e x i s t e d following t h e g r a n t o f M o h a m m a d ' s a d j u s t m e n t o f status request. (Dkt. No. 6 2 , ? II 3 F o l l o w i n g t h e a p p r o v a l o f M o h a m m a d ' s a d j u s t m e n t application, t h e p a r t i e s repOlied to t h e c o u r t t h a t t h e y h a d r e a c h e d r e s o l u t i o n o n m a n y o f the i s s u e s t h a t w e r e t h e s u b j e c t o f t h e i r thenpending cross-motions for summary judgment. T h e court directed the pmiies to b r i e f t h e remaining issues peliaining to M o h a n m l a d ' s declaratOlyjudgment claim, including b u t n o t limited to mootness. T h e G o v e n m l e n t ' s current m o t i o n (Dkt. No. 66) and the p a r t i e s ' related briefing (Dk!. Nos. 6 3 , 6 7 , 68, and 69) p r e s e n t the issues remaining for the cOUli to d e t e n n i n e following approval o f M o h a n l l l l a d ' s adjustment application. Accordingly, t h e cOUli finds t h e current m o t i o n to replace and supersede the p a r t i e s ' p r i o r motions (Dk!. Nos. 36, 40, and 44), w h i c h are d e e m e d moot. FINDINGS A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N 4 {KPR} Legal S t a n d a r d " A m o t i o n to dismiss u n d e r Federal R u l e o f Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) tests the subject m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n o f the c o u t i . " A h m e d v. S c h m f e n , No. C 08-1680 M H P , 2009 W L 55939, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 7 , 2 0 0 9 ) ( c i t i n g S a v a g e v . Glendale Union High Sell., Dist. No. 205, M a r i c o p a County, 343 F . 3 d 1036, 1039-40 ( 9 t h Cir. 2003)). This challenge to j u r i s d i c t i o n m a y b e either facial o r factual, d e p e n d i n g o n w h e t h e r t h e m o t i o n relies o n l y o n t h e allegations i n t h e c o m p l a i n t o r i f i t r e l i e s o n evidence extrinsic to the complaint as well. See Savage, 343 F . 3 d at 1039 ( " I n evaluating t h e rule 12(b)( 1) m o t i o n to dismiss, the district court considered affidavits furnished b y b o t h pmiies. This is p r o p e r b e c a u s e R u l e 12(b)( 1) attacks o n j u r i s d i c t i o n c a n b e e i t h e r facial, confining the i n q u i r y to allegations i n t h e complaint, o r factual, permitting the cOUli to l o o k b e y o n d the c o m p l a i n t . " (citation o m i t t e d ) ) . W h e r e t h e c h a l l e n g e i s factual, t h e c o u r t " n e e d n o t " p r e s u m e t t u e t h e a l l e g a t i o n s contained i n t h e complaint. White v. Lee, 227 F . 3 d 1214, 1242 ( 9 t h Cir. 2000). T h e p a r t y asserting j u r i s d i c t i o n b e a r s the b u r d e n o f establishing that i t exists i n a g i v e n case. Kokkonen v. Guardian L i f e Ins. Co. o fAmerica, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citing McNutt v. General Motors A c c e p t a n c e CO/po o f I n d i a n a , 2 9 8 U . S . 178, 182-183 (1936)). Discussion T h e G o v e r n m e n t a s s e l i s a factual c h a l l e n g e t o t h e c o u r t ' s s u b j e c t m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n . S u c h a challenge goes b e y o n d the allegations i n the complaint and "attack[s] the existence o f subject m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n i n fact." Thornhill P u b l i s h i n g Co. v. General Tel. & Electronics CO/p., 5 9 4 F . 2 d 7 3 0 , 7 3 3 (9th Cir. 1979) ( c i t i n g L a n d v . Dollar, 330 U.S. 731, 735 (1947) (parallel c i t a t i o n omitted)). I n p a r t i c u l a r , t h e G o v e r n m e n t argues t h a t h a v i n g h a d t h e r e q u e s t e d a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a c t i o n t a k e n b y t h e U S C I S , M o h a m m a d m a y n o l o n g e r c l a i m a j u s t i c i a b l e c o n t r o v e r s y and, t h u s , h i s a c t i o n i s m o o t . FINDINGS A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N 5 {KPR} on to the mootness doctrine Moham m a d argues, primarily, that t h e voluntmy cessation excepti a l delays i n t h e n a t u r a l i z a t i o n applies because M o h a n n n a d is still vulnerable to further govemment process and, flUther, the complaint seeks b o t h injunctive and dec1aratOlY relief, n e i t h e r o f w h i c h w e r e ation. resolved b y t h e approval o f M o h a m m a d ' s adjustment o f status applic ' o r the p a r t i e s lack a A c a s e b e c o m e s m o o t w h e n " t h e issues p r e s e n t e d are no l o n g e r ' l i v e wrence Berkeley LaboratOl)', legally cognizable interest i n the outcome." Norman-Bloodsaw v. La v. Davis, 4 4 0 U.S. 6 2 5 , 6 3 1 135 F.3d 1260, 1274 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting County 0/ Los Angeles t h e ' t e s t for m o o t n e s s . . . i s (1979)). In particular, " [w ] h e n a p l a i n t i f f seeks declaratOly r e l i e f . . . e is a s u b s t a n t i a l c whether the facts alleged, u n d e r all the circumstances, s h o w that t h e r ontroversy, c y and reality to w a r r a n t t h e b e t w e e n p a r t i e s h a v i n g adverse legal interests, o f sufficient i m m e d i a y v. Lolm, 511 F . 3 d 960, 963 i s s u a n c e o f a dec1aratOlyjudgment.'" C e n t e r / o r Biological Diversit (9th Cir. 2007) (quotingBiodiversityLegalFoundation v. Badgley, 309 F . 3 d 1166, 1174-75 ( 9 t h C i r . blish m o o t n e s s bears a h e a v y 2 0 0 2 ) ( i n t e r n a l quotatiori m a r k s o m i t t e d ) ) . T h e p a r t y s e e k i n g t o e s t a burden. Norman-Bloodsaw, 135 F . 3 d at 1274. d ' s c o m p l a i n t , t h e r e is T h e G o v e r n m e n t argues that, b a s e d o n t h e allegations i n M o h a n l l i l a r t c o m p e l a d j u d i c a t i o n o f his n o f u r t h e r g r o u n d for r e l i e f . F i r s t , M o h a m m a d r e q u e s t e d t h a t t h e c o u o f j u d i c i a l review u n d e r t h e application for adjustment o f status p u r s u a n t to the A PA. T h e scope A P A i n c l u d e s " c o m p e l [ l i n g ] agency a c t i o n u n l a w f u l l y w i t h h e l d o r u m e a s o n a b l y delayed," 5 U.S.C. s e r t s t h a t a n a g e n c y failed § 706(1), b u t a s u i t to c o m p e l action " c a n p r o c e e d only where a p l a i n t i f f as v. Southern Utah Wilderness to t a k e a discrete agency action that i t is required to take." Norton l). Alliance ("SUWA "), 542 U.S. 55, 64 (2004) (emphasis in origina D e s p i t e t h e arguably a d b e e n so unreasonable as to d i s c r e t i o n a r y n a t u r e o f t h e delay, M o h a m m a d a r g u e d t h a t t h e d e l a y h FINDINGS AND R E C O M M E N D A T I O N 6 {KPR} rise to the level o f a refusal to adjudicate his application and, thus, the court h a d j u r i s d i c t i o n to compel t h e uscrs to act. However, o n April 29, 2009, M o h a m m a d ' s application w a s adjudicated and approved based o n a n individual exemption. This, the Government contends, represents all r e l i e f M o h a m m a d sought related to the allegedly u m e a s o n a b l e delay. T h e c o u r t agrees t h a t M o h a m m a d ' s c l a i m s o f u m e a s o n a b l e d e l a y i n a d j u d i c a t i n g h i s a p p l i c a t i o n h a v e b e e n m o o t e d b y approval o f M o h a m m e d ' s a d j u s t m e n t application a n d his r e c e i p t o f p e r m a n e n t r e s i d e n t status. M o h a m m a d ' s c o m p l a i n t m a k e s c l e a r t h a t h e h a s o b t a i n e d t h e r e l i e f h e s o u g h t t h r o u g h this lawsuit. T h e g r e a t b u l k o f t h e c o m p l a i n t d e s c r i b e s t h e e v e n t s t h a t led to M o h a m m a d ' s f i l i n g a n a p p l i c a t i o n for p e n n a n e n t r e s i d e n c y a n d p u r p o r t s t o c h r o n i c l e t h e v a r i o u s s y s t e m i c and s y s t e m a t i c s o u r c e s o f d e l a y t h a t h a d c o m b i n e d t o p r e v e n t a p p r o v a l o f h i s application. (Complaint ("Comp!.") 3-10.) His claims for relief, w h i c h appear o n the final two pages o f his complaint, focus almost exclusively o n the consequences to h i s application o f the on-going delay i n p r o c e s s i n g h i s a p p l i c a t i o n , (Comp!. 1 0 - 1 2 ) , p r i m a t y o f w h i c h i s t h a t h e " h a s b e e n d e n i e d h i s r i g h t to apply to b e c o m e a lawful permanent resident o f the U n i t e d States." (Comp!. 11.) W i t h the a p p r o v a l o f h i s a d j u s t m e n t application, h e h a s o b t a i n e d t h e r e l i e f h e sought, lawful p e r m a n e n t r e s i d e n t status. M o h a m m a d claims that h i s case is not m o o t because h e seeks declaratOlY j u d g m e n t that the d e l a y i n adjudicating h i s a p p l i c a t i o n w a s unreasonable, a n d h e suggests t h a t s u c h a finding w o u l d a s s i s t h i m b e c a u s e " [ w ] i t h o u t a f o r m a l r u l i n g t h a t r e s p o n d e n t s h a v e d e l a y e d r u l i n g o n his a d j u s t m e n t , p e t i t i o n e r r e m a i n s v u l n e r a b l e to a n o t h e r e q u a l l y l o n g l e n g t h o f t i m e i n p r o c e s s i n g his n a t u r a l i z a t i o n a p p l i c a t i o n . " ( P l a i n t i f f s S u p p l e m e n t a l B r i e f 4 . ) T h e G o v e r r u l l e n t r e s p o n d s that, i n l i g h t o f t h e a d j u d i c a t i o n o f h i s a p p l i c a t i o n , t h e r e i s s i m p l y n o j u r i s d i c t i o n a l b a s i s for s u c h d e c l a r a t o r y relief. FINDINGS A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N 7 {KPR} Furthennore, it argues, there is no reason to believe that Mohammad will ever again b e subjected to delayed processing o f his adjustment o f status application because such application has been approved; he now has permanent resident status. Accordingly, there is no injury that can be remedied by the requested declaratory judgment. Mohammad replies that such declaratory r e l i e f is permitted under the "voluntaty cessation" exception to the mootness doctrine, which provides that "[m]ere voluntary cessation o f allegedly illegal conduct does not m o o t a case; i f it did, the courts would be compelled to leave the defendant . . . free to retUl1l to his old ways." United States v. Concentrated Phosphate E x p o r t A s s 'n, 393 U.S. 199,203 (1968) (intel11al quotation marks omitted). I n other words, "actions are properly dismissed as moot i f i t is 'absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could n o t reasonably be expected to recur. ,,, Jabbal)1 v. Mlikasey, No. 08-50-JE, 2008 W L 2477561, at *3 (D. Or. June 1 3 , 2 0 0 8 ) (quoting Friends o f the Earth, Inc. v. L a i d l a w Environmental Services, Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189 (2000». M o h a m m a d ' s arguments on this point are unavailing. First, his position relies on the s p e c u l a t i v e c o n t e n t i o n t h a t the Government c o u l d p o t e n t i a l l y rescind i t s grant o f p e r m a n e n t r e s i d e n t status to Mohammad, a proposition without support in the record here. M o h a m m a d ' s situation is materially different from that o f t h e plaintiffinAboll-Elm(ljd v. Gonzales, No. 06-1154-Kl, 2006 W L 2994840 (Oct. 19,2006). There, the government approved the p l a i n t i f f s adjustment application, then reversed course and denied it based on an undisclosed "memo". !d. at *1. Judge K i n g concluded that the government, based on its inconsistent treatment o f the p l a i n t i f f s application, coupled with its failure to agree that it would cease to rely o n the "secret 'memo'" i n the future, did not meet its "heavy burden" o f demonstrating that " i t is 'absolutely clear' it will comply with its own regulations and the United State Constitution i n the future." Id. at *2 (quoting Friends o fthe Earth, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION {KPR} 8 Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services., Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189 ( 2 0 0 0 » . I n contrast, h e r e the Government granted M o h a m m a d ' s adjustment application, has not rescinded it o r threatened to rescind it, and has m a d e n o reference to any extrinsic factor, such as a " s e c r e t m e m o , " that might c a u s e i t t o r e c o n s i d e r i t s g r a n t o f h i s application. S e c o n d , M o h a m m a d ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e G o v e r m n e n t m i g h t c h o o s e to d e l a y p r o c e s s i n g o f his application for citizenship suffers from a similar absence o f support i n t h e record. A delay in p r o c e s s i n g M o h a m m a d ' s a d j u s t m e n t a p p l i c a t i o n does n o t r e q u i r e a f i n d i n g t h a t t h e G o v e m m e n t w i l l o r is likely to delay processing o f his citizenship application. 4 This i s especially so o n this record, w h i c h c o n t a i n s t h e G o v e r m n e n t ' s u n c o n t r o v e r t e d evidence o f t h e f a c t o r s c o n s i d e r e d a n d i n v e s t i g a t e d relevant to M o h a m m a d ' s application: that the FBI followed its name-check procedures for M o h a m m a d ' s application, that his application was placed on adjudicatOlY h o l d because o f his affiliation with the Iraqi National Congress, and that time was required to assess the applicability to Mohal11l11ad o f a n exemption added to the Immigration a n d Nationality Act. And, as the G o v e r n m e n t c o r r e c t l y p o i n t s o u t , t h e c i t i z e n s h i p p r o c e s s i s g o v e r n e d b y a d i f f e r e n t s t a t u t e and d i f f e r e n t c r i t e r i a t h a n the a d j u s t m e n t o f s t a t u s p r o c e s s . I n s u m , n o t h i n g i n t h e r e c o r d s u g g e s t s t h a t the G o v e r n m e n t w i l l d e l a y p r o c e s s i n g o f M o h a m m a d ' s c i t i z e n s h i p a p p l i c a t i o n . Third, M o h a m m a d has abandoned this argument. Originally, h e had asked t h e court to " b a r [the Govenmlent] from instituting any proceedings under 8 U S C § 1256 seeking [to] rescind approval o f [ M o h a m m a d ' s ] a d j u s t m e n t o f status, u n l e s s s u c h r e s c i s s i o n is b a s e d o n n e w l y o b t a i n e d i n f o r m a t i o n n o t i n r e s p o n d e n t ' s p o s s e s s i o n a t the t i m e o f a d j u s t m e n t . " (Compl. 12.) The G o v e r m n e n t r e s p o n d e d t h a t t h i s r e l i e f i s b e y o n d the s c o p e o f t h e c o m p l a i n t b e c a u s e M o h a m m a d f a i l s 4 Mohammad filed his citizenship application ninety days ago, o n June 9, 2009. 9 {KPR} FINDINGS A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N to allege any b a d faith o n the G o v e r n m e n t ' s p a r t w i t h regard to his application, and without any reason to believe that the Government currently possesses information that i t w o u l d use to s u b s e q u e n t l y r e s c i n d M o h m m n a d ' s a p p l i c a t i o n , t h e r e s i m p l y i s n o b a s i s f o r s u c h relief. M o h a m m a d , i n h i s response brief, states " [ p ]etitioner agrees w i t h respondents that they are unlikely to rescind t h e g r a n t o f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a d j u s t m e n t , and d o e s n o t a d v a n c e t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f s u c h a r e s c i s s i o n i n s u p p o r t o f t h e p e t i t i o n e r ' s v o l u n t a r y c e s s a t i o n a r g u m e n t . " ( P l a i n t i f f s R e s p o n s e B r i e f 3 n.2.) T h e r e f o r e , b e c a u s e M o h a m m a d a c k n o w l e d g e s t h e a b s e n c e o f a n y b a s i s for t h i s p a r t o f t h e r e l i e f h e s e e k s , h i s p o s i t i o n o n t h i s i s s u e s h o u l d b e rejected. Conelusion F o r the reasons stated, the G o v e r n m e n t ' s m o t i o n to dismiss (#66) should b e granted. Scheduling Order T h e Findings and Recommendation w i l l b e referred to a district j u d g e . Objections, i f any, are due N o v e m b e r 2, 2009. I f n o objections are filed, t h e n the Findings and R e c o m m e n d a t i o n will go u n d e r advisement o n that date. I f objections are filed, then a response is due w i t h i n 14 days after b e i n g served w i t h a copy o f t h e o b j e c t i o n s . W h e n t h e r e s p o n s e i s d u e o r filed, w h i c h e v e r d a t e i s e a r l i e r , t h e F i n d i n g s a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n will go u n d e r advisement. D A T E D t h i s 1 9 t h d a y o f October, 2009. J IBN V. A C O S T A Unite J ' t a t e s Magistrate Judge FINDINGS AND R E C O M M E N D A T I O N 10 {KPR}

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?