1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 SATISH KUMAR BANUKUMAR, Case No. 23-cv-04104-BLF
8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 9 v. MOTION TO REMAND
10 ALEJANDRO N. MAYORKAS, et al., [Re: ECF No. 12] 11 Defendants.
12 13 On August 12, 2023, Plaintiff Satish Kumar Banukumar petitioned the Court for de novo 14 review of his application for naturalization pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). ECF No. 1 15 (“Compl.”). On October 30, 2023, Defendants filed a Motion to Remand the matter to USCIS, 16 asserting that the agency is prepared to adjudicate Mr. Banukumar’s application for naturalization 17 within fifteen days of remand. ECF No. 12 (“Mot.”). Mr. Banukumar filed an opposition, ECF 18 No. 16 (“Opp.”), and Defendants filed a reply. ECF No. 19 (“Reply”). This matter is suitable for 19 determination without oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). For the reasons set forth below, 20 Defendants’ Motion to Remand is GRANTED. 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 Plaintiff Satish Kumar Banukumar is a male national of India and is not a citizen of the 23 United States. Compl. ¶ 5. He has applied to USCIS for naturalization to United States 24 citizenship. Id. Mr. Banukumar was lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United 25 States on May 4, 2015, more than five years prior to his application for naturalization. Id. ¶ 11. 26 He adjusted to lawful permanent resident status based on an approved employer petition for him as 27 a professional holding an advanced degree. Id. Mr. Banukumar has one misdemeanor conviction 1 public altercation with his wife on May 10, 2020. Id. ¶ 14. 2 Mr. Banukumar filed an application for naturalization with USCIS on March 25, 2022. Id. 3 ¶ 9. USCIS scheduled Mr. Banukumar for examination on his naturalization application on 4 November 22, 2022. Id. ¶ 16. On January 18, 2023, USCIS issued a Notice of Continuance to 5 Mr. Banukumar that requested records for the disposition of his arrest on May 10, 2020, and 6 further requested that he “include protective orders, orders of no contact, and peaceful contact 7 orders and how those orders were complied with.” Id. ¶ 17. USCIS has not yet adjudicated Mr. 8 Banukumar’s application for naturalization. Id. ¶ 18. Mr. Banukumar alleges that “[t]he only 9 reason that USCIS has given for the delay is that it is waiting to retrieve a file from storage.” Id. 10 II. LEGAL STANDARD 11 To obtain U.S. citizenship, an applicant must satisfy several requirements, including the 12 requirement of establishing that they are “a person of good moral character.” 8 U.S.C. § 1427(a); 13 8 C.F.R. § 316.2(a)(7). Before granting a naturalization application, USCIS must conduct a 14 personal investigation of the applicant consisting of, at a minimum, review of all pertinent records. 15 See 8 U.S.C. § 1446(a); 8 C.F.R. § 335.1. If USCIS fails to adjudicate a naturalization application 16 within 120 days after the date on which the agency’s examination is conducted, an applicant may 17 obtain a hearing in district court. See 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). “Such court has jurisdiction over the 18 matter and may either determine the matter or remand the matter, with appropriate instructions, to 19 [USCIS] to determine the matter.” Id. The “examination” referred to in Section 1447(b) is the 20 initial interview scheduled under 8 U.S.C. § 1446. See United States v. Hovsepian, 359 F.3d 21 1144, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2004). 22 III. DISCUSSION 23 Over 120 days have passed since Mr. Banukumar’s naturalization interview on November 24 22, 2022. Compl. ¶ 16; Opp. at 3; Reply at 3-4. Therefore, under Section 1447(b), the Court has 25 jurisdiction to either determine or remand the matter. 26 “Although district courts have jurisdiction to decide applications for naturalization, the 27 vast majority of courts remand these matters to the USCIS to decide in the first instance whether 1 at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2012). Courts remand naturalization applications to USCIS in deference 2 to the agency's expertise in investigation, fact-finding, and adjudication of applications for 3 naturalization. See, e.g., id. (“The executive branch is in a better position than this Court to decide 4 [the p]laintiff's application for [naturalization].”) (citing I.N.S. v. Orlando Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 5 17 (2002)); Deng v. Chertoff, No. C 06-7697 SI, 2007 WL 1501736, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 22, 6 2007) (“The Court finds it appropriate to remand this action to USCIS because that agency has 7 considerably more expertise than the Court in adjudicating naturalization petitions.”); Reddy v. 8 Mueller, 551 F. Supp. 2d 952, 953 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (“Since USCIS processed [the p]laintiff's 9 application, conducted his interview and orchestrated his background investigation . . . USCIS is 10 the government entity best equipped to adjudicate [his] application.”). 11 Defendants ask the Court to remand so that USCIS can promptly adjudicate Mr. 12 Banukumar’s application. Specifically, Defendants represent in their motion that “USCIS is 13 prepared to complete adjudication of Plaintiff’s naturalization application by issuing a decision 14 within fifteen days of the Court’s order remanding this case to USCIS.” Mot. at 1. 15 Despite Defendants’ proposal, Mr. Banukumar argues that the delay was needless and 16 expresses concern that remand will lead to further delay if USCIS denies his naturalization 17 application and he is forced to exhaust his administrative remedies before returning to this Court 18 again. Opp. at 9-10. Mr. Banukumar relies on Yith v. Nielsen, where the court refused to remand 19 because it would “create another administrative hurdle for [p]laintiffs who have already been [] 20 subject to long delays.” 343 F. Supp. 3d 938, 950 (E.D. Cal. 2018). 21 Mr. Banukumar also argues that this Court cannot properly remand “with appropriate 22 instructions” because “Defendants have withheld the results of their investigation and their 23 position on Mr. Banukumar’s eligibility,” and suggests that “[a]ppropriate instructions might 24 include, according to the Ninth Circuit, ordering the agency ‘to adopt the court’s fact-finding and 25 conclusions.’” Opp. at 6 (quoting Hovsepian, 359 F.3d at 1160-61). He also asserts that 26 Defendants’ motion to remand is premature because they “have not given the Court sufficient 27 information to determine what instructions are appropriate” for remand. Opp. at 2. 1 additional investigation into Mr. Banukumar’s moral character. Reply at 3. Defendants add that if 2 “Plaintiff had accepted Defendants’ offer to take final adjudicative action within fifteen days of 3 remand and stipulated to a remand at that time, Plaintiff’s N-400 application would be resolved 4 before the completion of briefing on Defendants’ motion to remand.” Id. 5 The Court finds that Defendants’ remand proposal is the appropriate remedy.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 SATISH KUMAR BANUKUMAR, Case No. 23-cv-04104-BLF
8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 9 v. MOTION TO REMAND
10 ALEJANDRO N. MAYORKAS, et al., [Re: ECF No. 12] 11 Defendants.
12 13 On August 12, 2023, Plaintiff Satish Kumar Banukumar petitioned the Court for de novo 14 review of his application for naturalization pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). ECF No. 1 15 (“Compl.”). On October 30, 2023, Defendants filed a Motion to Remand the matter to USCIS, 16 asserting that the agency is prepared to adjudicate Mr. Banukumar’s application for naturalization 17 within fifteen days of remand. ECF No. 12 (“Mot.”). Mr. Banukumar filed an opposition, ECF 18 No. 16 (“Opp.”), and Defendants filed a reply. ECF No. 19 (“Reply”). This matter is suitable for 19 determination without oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). For the reasons set forth below, 20 Defendants’ Motion to Remand is GRANTED. 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 Plaintiff Satish Kumar Banukumar is a male national of India and is not a citizen of the 23 United States. Compl. ¶ 5. He has applied to USCIS for naturalization to United States 24 citizenship. Id. Mr. Banukumar was lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United 25 States on May 4, 2015, more than five years prior to his application for naturalization. Id. ¶ 11. 26 He adjusted to lawful permanent resident status based on an approved employer petition for him as 27 a professional holding an advanced degree. Id. Mr. Banukumar has one misdemeanor conviction 1 public altercation with his wife on May 10, 2020. Id. ¶ 14. 2 Mr. Banukumar filed an application for naturalization with USCIS on March 25, 2022. Id. 3 ¶ 9. USCIS scheduled Mr. Banukumar for examination on his naturalization application on 4 November 22, 2022. Id. ¶ 16. On January 18, 2023, USCIS issued a Notice of Continuance to 5 Mr. Banukumar that requested records for the disposition of his arrest on May 10, 2020, and 6 further requested that he “include protective orders, orders of no contact, and peaceful contact 7 orders and how those orders were complied with.” Id. ¶ 17. USCIS has not yet adjudicated Mr. 8 Banukumar’s application for naturalization. Id. ¶ 18. Mr. Banukumar alleges that “[t]he only 9 reason that USCIS has given for the delay is that it is waiting to retrieve a file from storage.” Id. 10 II. LEGAL STANDARD 11 To obtain U.S. citizenship, an applicant must satisfy several requirements, including the 12 requirement of establishing that they are “a person of good moral character.” 8 U.S.C. § 1427(a); 13 8 C.F.R. § 316.2(a)(7). Before granting a naturalization application, USCIS must conduct a 14 personal investigation of the applicant consisting of, at a minimum, review of all pertinent records. 15 See 8 U.S.C. § 1446(a); 8 C.F.R. § 335.1. If USCIS fails to adjudicate a naturalization application 16 within 120 days after the date on which the agency’s examination is conducted, an applicant may 17 obtain a hearing in district court. See 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). “Such court has jurisdiction over the 18 matter and may either determine the matter or remand the matter, with appropriate instructions, to 19 [USCIS] to determine the matter.” Id. The “examination” referred to in Section 1447(b) is the 20 initial interview scheduled under 8 U.S.C. § 1446. See United States v. Hovsepian, 359 F.3d 21 1144, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2004). 22 III. DISCUSSION 23 Over 120 days have passed since Mr. Banukumar’s naturalization interview on November 24 22, 2022. Compl. ¶ 16; Opp. at 3; Reply at 3-4. Therefore, under Section 1447(b), the Court has 25 jurisdiction to either determine or remand the matter. 26 “Although district courts have jurisdiction to decide applications for naturalization, the 27 vast majority of courts remand these matters to the USCIS to decide in the first instance whether 1 at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2012). Courts remand naturalization applications to USCIS in deference 2 to the agency's expertise in investigation, fact-finding, and adjudication of applications for 3 naturalization. See, e.g., id. (“The executive branch is in a better position than this Court to decide 4 [the p]laintiff's application for [naturalization].”) (citing I.N.S. v. Orlando Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 5 17 (2002)); Deng v. Chertoff, No. C 06-7697 SI, 2007 WL 1501736, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 22, 6 2007) (“The Court finds it appropriate to remand this action to USCIS because that agency has 7 considerably more expertise than the Court in adjudicating naturalization petitions.”); Reddy v. 8 Mueller, 551 F. Supp. 2d 952, 953 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (“Since USCIS processed [the p]laintiff's 9 application, conducted his interview and orchestrated his background investigation . . . USCIS is 10 the government entity best equipped to adjudicate [his] application.”). 11 Defendants ask the Court to remand so that USCIS can promptly adjudicate Mr. 12 Banukumar’s application. Specifically, Defendants represent in their motion that “USCIS is 13 prepared to complete adjudication of Plaintiff’s naturalization application by issuing a decision 14 within fifteen days of the Court’s order remanding this case to USCIS.” Mot. at 1. 15 Despite Defendants’ proposal, Mr. Banukumar argues that the delay was needless and 16 expresses concern that remand will lead to further delay if USCIS denies his naturalization 17 application and he is forced to exhaust his administrative remedies before returning to this Court 18 again. Opp. at 9-10. Mr. Banukumar relies on Yith v. Nielsen, where the court refused to remand 19 because it would “create another administrative hurdle for [p]laintiffs who have already been [] 20 subject to long delays.” 343 F. Supp. 3d 938, 950 (E.D. Cal. 2018). 21 Mr. Banukumar also argues that this Court cannot properly remand “with appropriate 22 instructions” because “Defendants have withheld the results of their investigation and their 23 position on Mr. Banukumar’s eligibility,” and suggests that “[a]ppropriate instructions might 24 include, according to the Ninth Circuit, ordering the agency ‘to adopt the court’s fact-finding and 25 conclusions.’” Opp. at 6 (quoting Hovsepian, 359 F.3d at 1160-61). He also asserts that 26 Defendants’ motion to remand is premature because they “have not given the Court sufficient 27 information to determine what instructions are appropriate” for remand. Opp. at 2. 1 additional investigation into Mr. Banukumar’s moral character. Reply at 3. Defendants add that if 2 “Plaintiff had accepted Defendants’ offer to take final adjudicative action within fifteen days of 3 remand and stipulated to a remand at that time, Plaintiff’s N-400 application would be resolved 4 before the completion of briefing on Defendants’ motion to remand.” Id. 5 The Court finds that Defendants’ remand proposal is the appropriate remedy. Fact-finding 6 by the Court would require months of additional litigation, and the Court sees no reason why it 7 should start its own investigation from scratch when USCIS can complete its investigation in 8 fifteen days. Even taking as true Mr. Banukumar’s allegation that delay to this point has been 9 needless, further litigation here would only add further delay while remand guarantees swift 10 adjudication. Furthermore, Yith is distinguishable because the plaintiff’s application had been 11 pending for more than three years, USCIS had previously issued a notice of intent to deny 12 naturalization, and USCIS had represented to the court three years earlier that it would make a 13 naturalization decision within 120 days of the interview. 343 F. Supp. 3d at 948-49 & n.11. None 14 of those issues are present in the instant case. Finally, any concern about the length of the 15 administrative review process (should Mr. Banukumar’s application be denied by USCIS) is not 16 properly before this Court. 17 Also, Mr. Banukumar’s argument that this Court cannot properly remand “with appropriate 18 instructions” fails. Courts can remand “with appropriate instructions” to adjudicate according to a 19 court-imposed deadline. See Namgyal v. Jaddou, No. 23-CV-02856-LJC, 2023 WL 6181641 20 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2023) (remanding and ordering adjudication within thirty days); cf. Deng, 21 2007 WL 1501736, at *2 (remanding and ordering adjudication “as soon as possible after the 22 agency receives the results of the FBI name check”). Furthermore, courts are not required to 23 conduct additional fact-finding. See 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) (providing that the Court can remand to 24 the agency “to determine the matter”); Namgyal, 2023 WL 6181641, at *4 (rejecting plaintiff’s 25 request for a court order compelling USCIS to grant the N-400 application because “such relief is 26 not consistent with its statutory authority”). And Mr. Banukumar cites no authority requiring 27 Defendants to share the “results of their investigation” with this Court. Thus, the Court may 1 Remand best serves judicial economy and permits USCIS to apply its expertise in 2 || adjudicating naturalization applications. Given Defendants’ representation that they can 3 adjudicate Mr. Banukumar’s application in fifteen days, remand also delivers Mr. Banukumar the 4 || fastest and most efficient adjudication of his application. Remanding Mr. Banukumar's 5 naturalization application to USCIS for determination in the first instance is the most appropriate 6 || way to proceed. 7 IV. ORDER 8 For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Remand is GRANTED. USCIS is 9 || hereby ORDERED to adjudicate Mr. Banukumar's application for naturalization within fifteen 10 || days of this Order. The Clerk SHALL administratively close the case. This is an internal 11 procedure that does not affect the substantive rights of the parties. The parties may request that 12 the case be reopened, if necessary.
15 || Dated: December 5, 2023 16 inyinacice | BETH LABSON FREEMAN 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28