DHONDUP NAMGYAL v. Jaddou

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: September 21, 2023
• Docket: 3:23-cv-02856
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 FNU DHONDUP NAMGYAL, Case No. 23-cv-02856-LJC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 9 v. REMAND

10 UR M. JADDOU, et al., Re: ECF No. 11 Defendants. 11

12 13 On June 9, 2023, Plaintiff Dhondup Namgyal petitioned the Court for de novo review of 14 his application for naturalization pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). ECF No. 1 (Compl.) ¶¶ 12-13. 15 Alternatively, Mr. Namgyal requested that the Court compel United States Citizenship and 16 Immigration Services (USCIS) to immediately adjudicate his application for naturalization 17 pursuant to the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361, and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 18 § 706(1). Id. ¶¶ 14-19. On August 18, 2023, Defendants1 filed a Motion to Remand the matter to 19 USCIS, contending the agency is prepared to adjudicate Mr. Namgyal’s application for 20 naturalization within thirty days from the issuance of this Order. ECF No. 11. Mr. Namgyal filed 21 an Opposition asserting his position against remand (ECF No. 12), and Defendants filed a Reply. 22 ECF No. 13. The Court held a hearing on September 19, 2023. ECF No. 15. The parties have 23 consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 24 ECF Nos. 5, 10. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ Motion to Remand is GRANTED. 25 // 26

27 1 Defendants in this matter are Ur M. Jaddou, Director of USCIS; Robin Barrett, District Director 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 Mr. Namgyal is a 42-year-old national of India of Tibetan descent. ECF No. 12-1 at 10.2 3 He became a legal permanent resident through marriage to a U.S. Citizen, Sherab Dolma. Id. 4 They married in Dehradun, India on November 5, 2012. Id. In January 2013, she filed an I-130 5 Petition for Alien Relative to bring him to the United States to live with her. Id. The I-130 6 Petition was approved on Valentine’s Day, 2014, and two years later, the U.S. State Department 7 issued an immigrant visa for Mr. Namgyal to enter the United States. Id. In 2018, however, Mr. 8 Namgyal and his wife divorced. Id. On or about December 4, 2020, Mr. Namgyal filed his Form 9 N-400, Application for Naturalization. Id. at 8. Mr. Namgyal had his naturalization interview at 10 the USCIS Field Office in San Francisco, California on February 4, 2022. Id. at 10. Since then, 11 no other action has been taken on his case. Id. 12 Mr. Namgyal made many queries to USCIS through their case status request tool as to why 13 his case is taking longer than usual to process but received no response. Id. During the wait, Mr. 14 Namgyal’s travel document from India expired, which has made him unable to travel home to visit 15 his ailing mother. Id. at 11. As a Tibetan, the Indian consulate will not give Mr. Namgyal another 16 travel document if he is not in India. Id. He also cannot procure a travel document from the 17 United States prior to naturalization. Id. 18 Defendants acknowledge that Mr. Namgyal’s application has been pending beyond the 19 average processing time for Forms N-400 at the San Francisco USCIS Field Office. ECF No. 20 11-1. They attribute the delay to “a USCIS investigation regarding [Mr. Namgyal’s] eligibility for 21 naturalization, including whether he was lawfully admitted for permanent residence.” Id. USCIS 22 has since concluded its investigation and has indicated on the record that it is not aware of any 23 basis that precludes a grant of Mr. Namgyal’s application for naturalization. Id. 24 Upon hearing no response from USCIS to his case status queries, Mr. Namgyal sought 25 counsel in May 2023. ECF No. 12-1 at 11. His attorney sent a copy of his draft federal complaint 26 to USCIS on May 20, 2023. Id. On June 8, 2023, Mr. Namgyal received a call from his ex-wife, 27 1 Ms. Dolma, informing him that two USCIS agents had had gone to her house to ask questions 2 about him. Id. At the time, she was at work, but they proceeded to question her current partner, 3 who was home. Id. The USCIS agents obtained Ms. Dolma’s phone number, and called and left 4 her a voicemail message, urging her to call them back to answer questions about Mr. Namgyal. 5 Id. At the hearing, counsel for Defendants indicated that the site visit to Ms. Dolma’s home had 6 been scheduled prior to USCIS’s receipt of Mr. Namgyal’s draft complaint. Counsel also 7 confirmed that the USCIS agents did speak with Ms. Dolma over the phone, after which the 8 agency concluded its investigation, all in the same day. 9 Mr. Namgyal filed his Complaint the next day, on June 9, 2023. See Compl. No proof of 10 service has been filed with the Court, but Mr. Namgyal states in his Opposition that Defendants 11 were properly served. ECF No. 12 at 11. According to Defendants, on July 12, 2023, they offered 12 Mr. Namgyal the same remand terms they propose now (adjudication of his application for 13 naturalization within thirty days), to be included in a proposed stipulation to remand, which he 14 rejected. ECF No. 11 at 7, n.2.3 Defendants have not filed an answer to the Complaint. 15 II. LEGAL STANDARD 16 If USCIS fails to adjudicate a naturalization application within 120 days after the date on 17 which the agency’s examination is conducted, an applicant may obtain a hearing in district court. 18 See 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). “Such court has jurisdiction over the matter and may either determine the 19 matter or remand the matter, with appropriate instructions, to [USCIS] to determine the matter.” 20 Id. The “examination” referred to in Section 1447(b) is the initial interview scheduled under 8 21 U.S.C. § 1446. See United States v. Hovsepian, 359 F.3d 1144, 1151–52 (9th Cir. 2004). 22 To obtain U.S. citizenship, an applicant must satisfy several requirements, including the 23 requirement of establishing that they are “a person of good moral character.” 8 U.S.C. § 1427(a); 24 8 C.F.R. § 316.2(a)(7). The applicant must also show that they have “resided continuously, after 25 being lawfully admitted for permanent residence, within the United States for at least five 26

27 3 Defendants cite to a declaration from their counsel, Elizabeth Kurlan. There is no such 1 years....” 8 U.S.C. § 1427(a). Before granting a naturalization application, USCIS must conduct a 2 personal investigation of the applicant consisting of, at a minimum, review of all pertinent records. 3 See 8 U.S.C. § 1446(a); 8 C.F.R. § 335.1. 4 III. DISCUSSION 5 A. Remand to USCIS 6 In this case, over 120 days have passed since Mr. Namgyal’s naturalization interview on 7 February 4, 2022. Therefore, under Section 1447(b), the Court has jurisdiction to either determine 8 or remand the matter. “Although district courts have jurisdiction to decide applications for 9 naturalization, the vast majority of courts remand these matters to the USCIS to decide in the first 10 instance whether to grant or deny citizenship.” Maniulit v. Majorkas, No. 3:12-CV-04501-JCS, 11 2012 WL 5471142, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2012). The Court finds that remand to USCIS, rather 12 than judicial determination of Mr. Namgyal’s application for naturalization, is the more 13 appropriate course of action here. 14 First and foremost, this Court has remanded naturalization applications to USCIS on 15 numerous occasions in deference to the agency’s expertise in investigation, fact-finding, and 16 adjudication of applications for naturalization. See, e.g., id. (“The executive branch is in a better 17 position than this Court to decide [the p]laintiff’s application for [naturalization]”) (citing I.N.S. v. 18 Orlando Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 17 (2002)); Deng v. Chertoff, No. C 06-7697 SI, 2007 WL 19 1501736, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 22, 2007) (“The Court finds it appropriate to remand this action to 20 USCIS because that agency has considerably more expertise than the Court in adjudicating 21 naturalization petitions”); Reddy v. Mueller, 551 F. Supp. 2d 952, 953 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (“Since 22 USCIS processed [the p]laintiff’s application, conducted his interview and orchestrated his 23 background investigation…USCIS is the government entity best equipped to adjudicate [his] 24 application.”) 25 Mr. Namgyal argues that USCIS can utilize its expertise here by presenting the agency’s 26 findings as to his naturalization application to the Court, for example, the results of its background 27 check investigations. ECF No. 12 at 8 (citing Etape v. Chertoff, 497 F.3d 379, 387 (4th 1 will more likely than not take longer than thirty days and further delay adjudication of Mr. 2 Namgyal’s application. See Sayed v. Chertoff, No. C 07-03455 WHA, 2008 WL 2788317, at *3 3 (N.D. Cal. July 18, 2008) (“Given that plaintiffs’ administrative record has not yet been filed with 4 the Court, and the Court would likely have to conduct a de novo hearing following receipt of the 5 record and any discovery by the parties… [USCIS] is in the best position to expeditiously 6 determine this matter”); Omran v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 1:07-CV-187, 2008 WL 320295, 7 at *6 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 4, 2008) (refusing to issue remand, setting hearing to “determine the matter” 8 of the plaintiff’s application for naturalization, and setting status conference “to discuss discovery, 9 set a briefing schedule, and establish parameters for the hearing.”) On the other hand, USCIS is 10 ready to adjudicate Mr. Namgyal’s naturalization application within thirty days of remand, which 11 is a “stated commitment to quickly process [his] application.” Elias v. Ow, No. 22CV1012-JO- 12 RBB, 2022 WL 17069841, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2022) (remanding with order that USCIS 13 adjudicate naturalization application within thirty days). 14 One of Mr. Namgyal’s primary concerns is that remand will lead to further delay if USCIS 15 denies his naturalization application and he is forced to exhaust his administrative remedies before 16 returning to this Court again. ECF No. 12 at 11. He relies on Yith v. Nielsen, 343 F.Supp.3d 938 17 (E.D. Cal. 2018), where the district court refused to remand and “create another administrative 18 hurdle for [p]laintiffs who have already been [] subject to long delays…” Id. at 950. However, 19 there, USCIS had issued a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID). Id. at 949. No NOID has been 20 issued here nor has USCIS at any point represented to the Court that it intends to deny Mr. 21 Namgyal’s naturalization application. To the contrary, USCIS has represented to the Court on the 22 record that it is “not aware of any basis that precludes a grant of [Mr. Namgyal’s] application for 23 naturalization.” ECF No. 11-1. This assuages any concerns the Court may have had that there is a 24 risk of “unnecessary waste of judicial resources if the matter is remanded only to land back before 25 the district court after an additional layer of administrative appeals.” Yith, 343 F.Supp.3d at 950. 26 Mr. Namgyal’s fear of a denial stems from what he characterizes as USCIS’s “clandestine 27 investigation” into his and his ex-wife’s marital affairs, specifically, whether his marriage to Ms. 1 his ex-wife and her current partner as “unnecessary, abusive, and show[ing] a lack of respect for 2 the law.” Id. at 10. 3 Mr. Namgyal does not cite to any legal authority proscribing USCIS’s ability to question 4 witnesses who voluntarily agree to talk to its agents, as part of the agency’s investigatory power 5 when it comes to adjudicating naturalization applications. There is no evidence to suggest that 6 Ms. Dolma and her partner’s decision to speak with the USCIS agents was not voluntary. 7 Moreover, USCIS has the authority to investigate the circumstances of how Mr. Namgyal became 8 a permanent resident. See 8 C.F.R. § 335.1 (providing that USCIS’s investigation of a 9 naturalization applicant “shall consist . . . of a review of all pertinent records . . . for at least the 10 five years immediately preceding the filing of the application.”) Accordingly, there is nothing 11 before the Court indicating that USCIS acted unlawfully or inappropriately in how it gathered 12 information for its background investigation into Mr. Namgyal’s eligibility for naturalization. 13 Mr. Namgyal also argues that remand is not warranted in this case because the delay in 14 adjudication of his naturalization application is substantial and unreasonable. ECF No. 12 at 5. 15 Under Section 1447(b), USCIS was required to adjudicate Mr. Namgyal’s naturalization 16 application by June 4, 2022. Twelve months had lapsed when he filed his Complaint, and fifteen 17 months have passed as of the date of this Order.4 This is less than the delay in the cases cited by 18 Mr. Namgyal where remand was denied. See Kim v. McAleenan, No. 1:19-CV-01212-SKC, 2020 19 WL 1026494, at *3 (D. Colo. Mar. 3, 2020) (finding the equities of the case weighed in favor of 20 remand because of a three-year delay combined with a “cursory” explanation from USCIS 21 regarding an ongoing investigation that did not allow the district court to conclude that the 22 significant delay was necessary); Negam v. United States, 480 F. Supp. 2d 877, 884 (N.D. Tex. 23 2007) (denying remand because of an almost two-year delay due to incomplete background 24 4 Although almost three years have passed since Mr. Namgyal first filed his naturalization 25 application (ECF No. 12 at 5), as he is aware, Section 1447(b)’s 120-day period begins running from the date of the initial interview, not the date of filing. See Hovsepian, 359 F.3d at 1151–52. 26 The Court calculates the delay beginning from June 4, 2022, which is 120 days after the initial interview. Mr. Namgyal’s emphasis on how more than sixteen months “have lapsed since the date 27 of [his] interview without agency action” is similarly misplaced. ECF No. 12 at 5. The Court 1 checks, and the defendants “failed to give the court or [the plaintiff] any assurance” as to when the 2 background checks would be finished).5 3 More importantly, here, Defendants have provided an explanation for the delay. USCIS 4 undertook an investigation concerning whether Mr. Namgyal was lawfully admitted for permanent 5 residence, and the investigation has since concluded. ECF No. 11-1. The Court has no reason to 6 believe that the investigation was unnecessary or somehow unreasonably contributed to the delay 7 in adjudicating Mr. Namgyal’s naturalization application. To the contrary, part of the delay may 8 come from the actions of Mr. Namgyal himself. Defendants claim he was offered the same 9 remand terms they propose now (adjudication within thirty days) back in July of this year, which 10 he rejected. ECF No. 11 at 7, n.2. Had those terms been accepted, the delay would have been 11 limited to approximately fourteen months. The Court is aware that “remand will not guarantee the 12 favorable decision” Mr. Namgyal seeks, but it will “partially satisfy [his] request by compelling 13 USCIS to reach a decision on [his] application within thirty days.” Karim v. United States Dep’t 14 of Homeland Sec., No. SACV0700766CJCANX, 2008 WL 11342838, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 12, 15 2008); see also Compl. ¶¶ 14-16 (asserting mandamus cause of action which sought prompt 16 adjudication by USCIS because “this Court has jurisdiction to compel Defendants to adjudicate 17 naturalization application within a reasonable period of time.”) 18 Finally, Mr. Namgyal attempts to distinguish the Section 1447(b) cases remanding 19 naturalization applications to USCIS by arguing that in most of those cases, agency investigations 20 and/or security checks were not completed, or some new information had come to light that 21 required further agency discernment. ECF No. 12 at 6. But here, all necessary background 22 checks, investigations, and interviews have been completed. Id. at 7. However, “even in cases 23 where the background checks were still pending, the courts also considered USCIS’s general 24 25 5 Mr. Namgyal also cites to Shalan v. Chertoff, No. CIV.A. 05-10980-RWZ, 2006 WL 42143 (D. 26 Mass. Jan. 6, 2006) and claims that the “extensive delay” there was six months. ECF No. 12 at 5. However, no such time period is mentioned in the district court’s order. The initial interview 27 occurred on November 3, 2004, and USCIS had not yet issued a decision as of the date of the 1 expertise on immigration matters to be an important reason why the agency should be the first to 2 determine an individual’s application. A background check is just one of many factors USCIS 3 looks into before deciding whether to grant or deny an application for naturalization.” Maniulit, 4 2012 WL 5471142, at *4 (internal citation omitted). Mr. Namgyal draws the Court’s attention to 5 Taalebinezhaad v. Chertoff, 581 F. Supp. 2d 243 (D. Mass. 2008), where the district court denied 6 remand and decided to adjudicate the naturalization application itself because security checks were 7 no longer pending. However, in Taalebinezhaad, the naturalization application had been pending 8 for over two years and the court “remained unconvinced after oral argument that [the] application 9 would necessarily be handled with alacrity if it were to remand the case to USCIS.” Id. at 246. 10 There is no such uncertainty here—USCIS is prepared to adjudicate Mr. Namgyal’s naturalization 11 application within thirty days from this Order. 12 Given all the above, the Court finds that remanding Mr. Namgyal’s naturalization 13 application to USCIS is the most appropriate way to proceed so that the agency can decide the 14 matter in the first instance.6 15 B. Remand with a Writ of Mandamus 16 In his Opposition, Mr. Namgyal requests alternative relief—should the Court decide to 17 remand, Mr. Namgyal requests an order compelling USCIS “to grant his N-400…and place him in 18 line for an oath ceremony to be conducted within 15 days.” ECF No. 12 at 4. As an initial matter, 19 the Court agrees with Defendants that such relief is not consistent with its statutory authority. See 20 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) (“[The court] may either determine the matter or remand the matter, with 21 appropriate instructions, to [USCIS] to determine the matter”) (emphasis added). 22 Moreover, Defendants correctly point out that the type of mandamus relief Mr. Namgyal 23 seeks is inappropriate in this case. ECF No. 13 at 6-7. “Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. A 24 writ of mandamus is appropriately issued only when (1) the plaintiff’s claim is clear and certain; 25 (2) the defendant official’s duty to act is ministerial, and so plainly prescribed as to be free from 26 doubt; and (3) no other adequate remedy is available.” Barron v. Reich, 13 F.3d 1370, 1374 (9th 27 1 Cir. 1994) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). While USCIS “has a non-discretionary 2 duty to…reach some decision on an application” for naturalization, “the ministerial duty to reach a 3 decision on an application is quite distinct from the discretionary duty of determining what that 4 decision will be.” Karim, 2008 WL 11342838, at *2. Mr. Namgyal has not demonstrated that 5 mandamus relief is appropriate here. 6 C. Name Change 7 Mr. Namgyal separately argues that it is appropriate in this case to deny Defendants’ 8 request for a remand because only the Court has jurisdiction to order a name change under 8 9 U.S.C. § 1447(e) (providing that the district court, as part of the oath of allegiance, and “upon the 10 bona fide prayer of the applicant included in an appropriate petition to the court,” can “make a 11 decree changing the name of said person, and the certificate of naturalization shall be issued in 12 accordance therewith.”) Mr. Namgyal wishes to correct his legal name from “FNU Dhondup 13 Namgyal” to “Dhondup Namgyal.” ECF No. 12 at 12-13. Alternatively, if the Court chooses to 14 remand the matter to USCIS, Mr. Namgyal requests that it provide an instruction to USCIS to 15 correct his name for the record. Id. at 13. According to Defendants, “[a]side from the fact that 16 [he] initiated this action as ‘FNU Dhondup Namgyal,’ [Mr. Namgyal] does not acknowledge there 17 has not yet been a determination by either the Court (or USCIS following remand) that [he] is 18 entitled to a certificate of naturalization.” ECF No. 13 at 6, n.2. 19 At the hearing, counsel for Defendants indicated that in the event USCIS approves Mr. 20 Namgyal’s application for naturalization on remand, there is a process in place to ensure the 21 correct name appears on his certificate of naturalization. Accordingly, the Court finds that the 22 issue of Mr. Namgyal’s name change does not warrant retaining jurisdiction of this matter at this 23 time. 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 1 IV. CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Remand is GRANTED in its entirety. 3 USCIS is hereby ordered to adjudicate Mr. Namgyal’s application for naturalization within thirty 4 days of this Order. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: September 21, 2023 7 8 LISA J. CISNEROS 9 United States Magistrate Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27