Al Khateeb v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: December 17, 2024
• Docket: 2:24-cv-00836
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE 10 11 MUATAZ YAHYA ABDULJABBAR AL CASE NO. 2:24-CV-00836-TL KHATEEB, 12 ORDER ON MOTION TO REMAND Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES ET AL, 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 This is an action for adjudication of a naturalization application. This matter is before the 19 Court on Defendants’ Motion to Remand Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). Dkt. No. 7. Having 20 reviewed Plaintiff Muataz Yahya Abduljabbar Al Khateeb’s response (Dkt. No. 9), Defendants’ 21 reply (Dkt. No. 12), and the relevant record, the Court GRANTS the motion and REMANDS this 22 matter to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) with instructions. 23 24 1 On June 11, 2024, Plaintiff commenced this action. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff filed his 2 naturalization application on November 25, 2021, and completed an interview on November 22, 3 2022, but his application remains pending. Dkt. No. 1 at 1. Defendants now request that the 4 Court “remand the matter to USCIS with instructions to schedule [Plaintiff’s] follow-up

5 interview within 30 days of the remand order and then adjudicate his Form N-400 within 30 days 6 of the interview.” Dkt. No. 7 at 2; see also Dkt. No. 12 (reply). USCIS states that adjudication 7 will be completed within 60 days of the Court remanding this matter. See Dkt. No. 8 (Cortolillo 8 declaration) ¶ 6. Plaintiff opposes remand and asks the Court to adjudicate the application itself.1 9 Dkt. No. 9. 10 “A person seeking naturalization must file an application with the USCIS.” Yith v. 11 Nielsen, 881 F.3d 1155, 1159 (9th Cir. 2018). “[I]f a USCIS employee fails to make a 12 determination ‘as to whether the application should be granted or denied’ . . . ‘before the end of 13 the 120-day period after the date on which the examination is conducted,’ then the applicant 14 ‘may apply to the United States district court for the district in which the applicant resides for a

15 hearing on the matter.’” Id. (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b)). “The district court ‘has jurisdiction 16 over the matter and may either determine the matter or remand the matter, with appropriate 17 instructions, to the [USCIS] to determine the matter.’” Id. (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b)) 18 (alteration in original). In other words, the district court is not required to hear the matter; 19 instead, the district court has the discretion to “either determine the matter or remand the matter.” 20 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). The district court’s jurisdiction is exclusive. See United States v. Hovsepian, 21 359 F.3d 1144, 1164 (9th Cir. 2004). 22

23 1 The Court acknowledges that Plaintiff wished for his application to be adjudicated prior to the November 2024 election in order to allow him to vote (see Dkt. No. 9 at 1), but notes that the noting date for this motion was after 24 election day. 1 Here, the Court finds that remand to USCIS is appropriate. The agency has offered to 2 conduct a follow-up interview with Plaintiff within 30 days of remand and adjudicate his 3 application within 30 days of the interview. See Dkt. No. 9 ¶ 8. This timeline is reasonable and 4 falls squarely within similar timelines ordered by other courts in the Ninth Circuit. See, e.g., Zhai

5 v. Jaddou, No. C23-1892, 2024 WL 1701973 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 19, 2024) (ordering adjudication 6 within 60 days of order); Louayme v. Mayorkas, No. C23-1009, 2023 WL 5516303, at *2 (E.D. 7 Cal. Aug. 25, 2023) (ordering adjudication within 30 days of order), report and recommendation 8 adopted, 2023 WL 6215361 (Sept. 25, 2023); Shahri v. USCIS Sacramento Field Off., No. C21- 9 1571, 2022 WL 1658737, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 25, 2022) (ordering adjudication within 120 days 10 of order), report and recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 4484113 (Sept. 27, 2022); Rashid v. 11 Dep’t of Homeland Security, No. C14-2109, 2017 WL 1398847, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2017) 12 (ordering adjudication within 60 days of order); Gill v. Crawford, No. C15-1633, 2016 WL 13 880952, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2016) (same). 14 Moreover, contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion (Dkt. No. 9 at 6), USCIS is better suited than

15 this Court to adjudicate Plaintiff’s application. See I.N.S. v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 17 (2002) 16 (noting that courts “should remand a case to an agency for decision of a matter that statutes place 17 primarily in agency hands,” a principle with “obvious importance in the immigration context”); 18 Shahri, 2022 WL 1658737, at *1 (“Here, like the majority of courts that have remanded 19 naturalization applications to USCIS, the [undersigned] finds the executive branch is in a better 20 position than this Court to decide Plaintiff’s naturalization application.” (quoting Singh v. 21 Crawford, No. C13-1894, 2014 WL 1116989, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2014))). Eligibility for 22 naturalization is a fact-intensive inquiry, and USCIS is better positioned to conduct the kinds of 23 investigation and fact-gathering required to evaluate Plaintiff’s application. See Ventura, 537

24 U.S. at 17 (“The agency can bring its expertise to bear upon the matter; it can evaluate the 1 evidence; it can make an initial determination; and, in doing so, it can, through informed 2 discussion and analysis, help a court later determine whether its decision exceeds the leeway that 3 the law provides.”). 4 Finally, Plaintiff makes various claims that USCIS has demonstrated a lack of good faith

5 (Dkt. No. 9 at 4), that remand would “forc[e] Plaintiff to re-file the case and re-request relief” 6 (id.), and that remand would “likely result in continued inaction” (id.). USCIS “acknowledges 7 the delay in processing and attributes the delay to relevant issues, such as whether [Plaintiff] can 8 establish good moral character as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1427.” Dkt. No. 12 at 3. Plaintiff offers 9 no evidence to suggest that the agency’s explanation is incorrect or dishonest; in the absence of 10 such evidence, the Court presumes that USCIS is “act[ing] properly and according to law.” Kohli 11 v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1061, 1068 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Fed. Commc’ns Comm’n v. Schreiber, 12 381 U.S. 279, 296 (1965)). If Plaintiff’s application is ultimately denied, he may seek judicial 13 review after a hearing before an immigration officer. See 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c); Nogami v. 14 Garland, No. C21-8019, 2022 WL 2764368, at *4 (C.D. Cal. July 13, 2022) (“[T]hese and the

15 other concerns raised can all be more properly addressed on a full record upon judicial review if 16 [plaintiff’s] application is denied.”); Gill, 2016 WL 880952, at *2 (“[B]oth Plaintiff and the 17 Court will benefit if USCIS first applies its unique expertise in immigration law to create a clear 18 record for review.”). 19 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: 20 (1) The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to remand (Dkt. No. 7). 21 (2) The Court REMANDS this matter to the United States Citizenship and Immigration 22 Services with the following instructions: 23 a. USCIS SHALL conduct a follow-up interview with Plaintiff within thirty

24 (30) days of this Order. 1 b. USCIS SHALL render a final determination on Plaintiff’s application 2 within thirty (30) days of the follow-up interview. 3 (3) The Court DIRECTS the Parties to file a joint status report within seven (7) days of 4 completion of adjudication by USCIS.

5 (4) The Court STAYS this matter pending a further Order to reopen or dismiss. 6 7 Dated this 17th day of December 2024. 8 A 9 Tana Lin United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23