1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Case No.: 22-CV-433 DMS JLB JOSEPH ERNEST ANTOINE
12 GUERTIN, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 13 Plaintiff, REMAND v. 14 U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND 15 IMMIGRATION SERVICES, et al., 16 Defendants. 17
18 19 This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ United States Citizenship And 20 Immigration Services (“USCIS”); Madeline Kristoff, in her Official Capacity as San Diego 21 Field Office Director, USCIS; Alanna Ow, in her Official Capacity as District 44 Director, 22 USCIS; Ur Jaddou, in her Official Capacity as Director of USCIS; and Alejandro 23 Mayorkas, in his Official Capacity as the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security 24 (collectively, “Defendants”) Motion to Remand (“Motion”), filed on July 6, 2022. 25 Defendants request that the Court remand the matter to USCIS. Plaintiff Joseph Ernest 26 Antoine Guertin filed an opposition on July 28, 2022, and Defendants filed a reply on 27 August 5, 2022. The Court found this matter suitable for disposition without oral argument 28 and vacated the hearing set for August 12, 2022. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b). For the reasons 1 stated below, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion. 2 I. 3 BACKGROUND 4 On April 1, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint (“Complaint”) against Defendants in 5 the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. (ECF No. 1.) 6 Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that Defendants violated 8 USC § 1447(b) by failing to make 7 a decision on his properly filed N-400 application for naturalization within 120 days of his 8 naturalization interview. 9 Plaintiff is a citizen of Canada and has been a permanent resident of the United States 10 since November 9, 2015. (ECF No. 1 at 6.) Plaintiff applied for naturalization with USCIS 11 on August 20, 2020. (Id.) Plaintiff appeared for his naturalization interview on July 29, 12 2021. (Id. at 7.) At that time, he passed the English and U.S history requirements for 13 naturalization. (ECF No 1. at 7; ECF No. 1, Ex. 5.) USCIS was required to render a 14 decision within 120 days of his interview date—November 26, 2021. 15 Plaintiff’s application was not adjudicated within the required period. When 16 Plaintiff contacted USCIS and requested an update on his application, he learned that his 17 application was undergoing “administrative processing” and “Supervisory Review.” (ECF 18 No. 1, Ex. 6.) As a result, Plaintiff filed the present Complaint, requesting the Court’s de 19 novo review of his eligibility for naturalization and a declaration that he is entitled to be 20 naturalized. (Id. at 13.) 21 II. 22 DISCUSSION 23 Plaintiff claims Defendants “failed and refused” to issue a decision on his 24 naturalization application and that Defendants’ inaction “represents a denial” of Plaintiff’s 25 application. (Id. at 11-12.) Plaintiff states he has exhausted his administrative remedies. 26 (Id.) Defendants acknowledge that Plaintiff’s application was not adjudicated within 120 27 days of his examination, but requests that the Court remand the matter to USCIS for 28 adjudication. (ECF No. 7 at 2-5.) Defendants argue that USCIS is in a better position to 1 adjudicate a naturalization application and assure the Court that USCIS is prepared to 2 adjudicate the application within 30 days of remand. (ECF No. 7 at 5.) 3 Plaintiff opposes Defendants’ Motion and requests that the Court order Defendants 4 to show cause why the Court should not naturalize him. (ECF No 9 at 2.) Plaintiff argues 5 that Defendants’ “failure to disclose” the reason for the delay in adjudication of his 6 application and “unwillingness to indicate if his application would be approved upon 7 remand” are an indication that USCIS is preparing to deny his application and “forc[e]” 8 him to undergo the subsequent appeals process. (ECF No. 9 at 8-9.) However, the Court 9 is not persuaded. 10 A. Legal Standard 11 “A lawful permanent resident alien is eligible for naturalization as a United States 12 citizen if he or she (1) satisfies a five-year statutory residency requirement; (2) has resided 13 continuously in the United States from the date of the application to the time of admission 14 as a citizen; and (3) is of good moral character.” Penalosa v. U.S. Citizenship & 15 Immigration Services., No. 07CV0808 JM(AJB), 2007 WL 2462118, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 16 28, 2007) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1427(a).) USCIS conducts a background investigation of the 17 applicant to ensure the three requirements are met. 18 Additionally, the applicant undergoes an interview with a USCIS examiner. “A 19 person seeking naturalization must file an application with the USCIS. A USCIS employee 20 is designated to conduct examinations upon applications for naturalization . . . After such 21 an examination, the USCIS employee must make a determination as to whether the 22 application should be granted or denied, with reasons therefor. If the application for 23 naturalization is denied following the USCIS employee’s examination under § 1446, the 24 applicant may request a hearing before an immigration officer.” Yith v. Nielsen, 881 F.3d 25 1155, 1159 (9th Cir. 2018) (citing 8 U.S.C. §§§ 1446(b), 1446(d), 1447(a)) (internal 26 quotations omitted.) 27 “When the USCIS has undertaken an examination of a person who has submitted a 28 naturalization application, and then does not make a determination on the application 1 within 120 days, it has failed to make a determination regardless [of] whether it decides to 2 commence removal proceedings and thereby prevent itself from making the 3 determination.” Yith, 881 F.3d at 1164 (9th Cir. 2018.) Then, “the applicant may apply to 4 the United States district court for the district in which the applicant resides for a hearing 5 on the matter. The district court has jurisdiction over the matter and may either determine 6 the matter or remand the matter, with appropriate instructions, to the USCIS to determine 7 the matter.” Yith, 881 F.3d at 1159 (citing 8 U.S.C. §§ 1447(b), 1421(c)) (internal 8 quotations omitted.) 9 B. Analysis 10 Plaintiff filed the Complaint because 120 days elapsed from the completion of his 11 naturalization interview. As a result, the Court presently has exclusive jurisdiction over 12 the matter and may either determine or remand the matter. Having considered the parties’ 13 arguments, the Court agrees with Defendants that remanding the matter is ideal. Multiple 14 courts in the Ninth Circuit have determined that USCIS is in a better position than the Court 15 to decide an application for immigration, considering USCIS’s expertise in the area. See 16 Koltsov v. Martin, No. ED CV18-00535 SJO, 2018 WL 6074575, at *3 (C.D. Cal. July 16, 17 2018) (citations omitted). Furthermore, USCIS assures that it is prepared to adjudicate 18 Plaintiff’s N-400 application within 30 days of the Court’s remand. (ECF No. 7 at 5.) 19 USCIS committed an inappropriate delay in adjudication of Petitioner’s naturalization 20 application but has now assured that it will make a decision promptly. This assurance 21 further warrants remand to the agency best suited to adjudicate the matter. 22 Plaintiff requests that the Court retain jurisdiction over his application and order 23 Defendants to show cause why the Court should not naturalize him. Plaintiff argues that 24 “it can only be presumed” that USCIS is preparing to deny his application and “further 25 delay his ability to become a citizen” based on its “unwillingness to indicate if his 26 application would be approved upon remand during discussions with [Defendants’] 27 counsel.” (ECF No.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Case No.: 22-CV-433 DMS JLB JOSEPH ERNEST ANTOINE
12 GUERTIN, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 13 Plaintiff, REMAND v. 14 U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND 15 IMMIGRATION SERVICES, et al., 16 Defendants. 17
18 19 This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ United States Citizenship And 20 Immigration Services (“USCIS”); Madeline Kristoff, in her Official Capacity as San Diego 21 Field Office Director, USCIS; Alanna Ow, in her Official Capacity as District 44 Director, 22 USCIS; Ur Jaddou, in her Official Capacity as Director of USCIS; and Alejandro 23 Mayorkas, in his Official Capacity as the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security 24 (collectively, “Defendants”) Motion to Remand (“Motion”), filed on July 6, 2022. 25 Defendants request that the Court remand the matter to USCIS. Plaintiff Joseph Ernest 26 Antoine Guertin filed an opposition on July 28, 2022, and Defendants filed a reply on 27 August 5, 2022. The Court found this matter suitable for disposition without oral argument 28 and vacated the hearing set for August 12, 2022. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b). For the reasons 1 stated below, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion. 2 I. 3 BACKGROUND 4 On April 1, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint (“Complaint”) against Defendants in 5 the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. (ECF No. 1.) 6 Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that Defendants violated 8 USC § 1447(b) by failing to make 7 a decision on his properly filed N-400 application for naturalization within 120 days of his 8 naturalization interview. 9 Plaintiff is a citizen of Canada and has been a permanent resident of the United States 10 since November 9, 2015. (ECF No. 1 at 6.) Plaintiff applied for naturalization with USCIS 11 on August 20, 2020. (Id.) Plaintiff appeared for his naturalization interview on July 29, 12 2021. (Id. at 7.) At that time, he passed the English and U.S history requirements for 13 naturalization. (ECF No 1. at 7; ECF No. 1, Ex. 5.) USCIS was required to render a 14 decision within 120 days of his interview date—November 26, 2021. 15 Plaintiff’s application was not adjudicated within the required period. When 16 Plaintiff contacted USCIS and requested an update on his application, he learned that his 17 application was undergoing “administrative processing” and “Supervisory Review.” (ECF 18 No. 1, Ex. 6.) As a result, Plaintiff filed the present Complaint, requesting the Court’s de 19 novo review of his eligibility for naturalization and a declaration that he is entitled to be 20 naturalized. (Id. at 13.) 21 II. 22 DISCUSSION 23 Plaintiff claims Defendants “failed and refused” to issue a decision on his 24 naturalization application and that Defendants’ inaction “represents a denial” of Plaintiff’s 25 application. (Id. at 11-12.) Plaintiff states he has exhausted his administrative remedies. 26 (Id.) Defendants acknowledge that Plaintiff’s application was not adjudicated within 120 27 days of his examination, but requests that the Court remand the matter to USCIS for 28 adjudication. (ECF No. 7 at 2-5.) Defendants argue that USCIS is in a better position to 1 adjudicate a naturalization application and assure the Court that USCIS is prepared to 2 adjudicate the application within 30 days of remand. (ECF No. 7 at 5.) 3 Plaintiff opposes Defendants’ Motion and requests that the Court order Defendants 4 to show cause why the Court should not naturalize him. (ECF No 9 at 2.) Plaintiff argues 5 that Defendants’ “failure to disclose” the reason for the delay in adjudication of his 6 application and “unwillingness to indicate if his application would be approved upon 7 remand” are an indication that USCIS is preparing to deny his application and “forc[e]” 8 him to undergo the subsequent appeals process. (ECF No. 9 at 8-9.) However, the Court 9 is not persuaded. 10 A. Legal Standard 11 “A lawful permanent resident alien is eligible for naturalization as a United States 12 citizen if he or she (1) satisfies a five-year statutory residency requirement; (2) has resided 13 continuously in the United States from the date of the application to the time of admission 14 as a citizen; and (3) is of good moral character.” Penalosa v. U.S. Citizenship & 15 Immigration Services., No. 07CV0808 JM(AJB), 2007 WL 2462118, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 16 28, 2007) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1427(a).) USCIS conducts a background investigation of the 17 applicant to ensure the three requirements are met. 18 Additionally, the applicant undergoes an interview with a USCIS examiner. “A 19 person seeking naturalization must file an application with the USCIS. A USCIS employee 20 is designated to conduct examinations upon applications for naturalization . . . After such 21 an examination, the USCIS employee must make a determination as to whether the 22 application should be granted or denied, with reasons therefor. If the application for 23 naturalization is denied following the USCIS employee’s examination under § 1446, the 24 applicant may request a hearing before an immigration officer.” Yith v. Nielsen, 881 F.3d 25 1155, 1159 (9th Cir. 2018) (citing 8 U.S.C. §§§ 1446(b), 1446(d), 1447(a)) (internal 26 quotations omitted.) 27 “When the USCIS has undertaken an examination of a person who has submitted a 28 naturalization application, and then does not make a determination on the application 1 within 120 days, it has failed to make a determination regardless [of] whether it decides to 2 commence removal proceedings and thereby prevent itself from making the 3 determination.” Yith, 881 F.3d at 1164 (9th Cir. 2018.) Then, “the applicant may apply to 4 the United States district court for the district in which the applicant resides for a hearing 5 on the matter. The district court has jurisdiction over the matter and may either determine 6 the matter or remand the matter, with appropriate instructions, to the USCIS to determine 7 the matter.” Yith, 881 F.3d at 1159 (citing 8 U.S.C. §§ 1447(b), 1421(c)) (internal 8 quotations omitted.) 9 B. Analysis 10 Plaintiff filed the Complaint because 120 days elapsed from the completion of his 11 naturalization interview. As a result, the Court presently has exclusive jurisdiction over 12 the matter and may either determine or remand the matter. Having considered the parties’ 13 arguments, the Court agrees with Defendants that remanding the matter is ideal. Multiple 14 courts in the Ninth Circuit have determined that USCIS is in a better position than the Court 15 to decide an application for immigration, considering USCIS’s expertise in the area. See 16 Koltsov v. Martin, No. ED CV18-00535 SJO, 2018 WL 6074575, at *3 (C.D. Cal. July 16, 17 2018) (citations omitted). Furthermore, USCIS assures that it is prepared to adjudicate 18 Plaintiff’s N-400 application within 30 days of the Court’s remand. (ECF No. 7 at 5.) 19 USCIS committed an inappropriate delay in adjudication of Petitioner’s naturalization 20 application but has now assured that it will make a decision promptly. This assurance 21 further warrants remand to the agency best suited to adjudicate the matter. 22 Plaintiff requests that the Court retain jurisdiction over his application and order 23 Defendants to show cause why the Court should not naturalize him. Plaintiff argues that 24 “it can only be presumed” that USCIS is preparing to deny his application and “further 25 delay his ability to become a citizen” based on its “unwillingness to indicate if his 26 application would be approved upon remand during discussions with [Defendants’] 27 counsel.” (ECF No. 9 at 8-9.) Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s application will be 28 adjudicated on the merits and claims “a determination has yet to be made on Plaintiff’s 1 application.” (ECF No. 10 at 6-7.) Defendants also point out that no statute or case 2 “require[s] this Court to receive assurances from USCIS regarding the results of 3 adjudication” before remand. The Court agrees with Defendants. 4 USCIS has not indicated in any submissions to the Court that it plans to deny 5 Plaintiff’s application. The Court expects Plaintiff’s application to receive evaluation and 6 adjudication on the merits and in adherence to 8 U.S.C. § 1427. The requirements Plaintiff 7 must meet to be naturalized do not change based on whether the entity making the decision 8 is the Court or USCIS. Should Plaintiff’s application be denied, he then has an opportunity 9 to appeal the decision and request the Court’s judicial review under 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c), as 10 Plaintiff himself points out. (ECF No. 9 at 8-9.) The inability to preemptively determine 11 whether USCIS would render a favorable decision is not a compelling reason to insist on 12 the Court’s jurisdiction. See Rashid v. Department of Homeland Security, No. 2:14-CV- 13 2109-JAM-KJN, 2017 WL 1398847, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2017) (a plaintiff’s suspicion 14 that his application has been subject to additional scrutiny . . . do[es] not warrant retention,” 15 especially when USCIS has assured prompt adjudication upon remand). 16 If Plaintiff’s application is denied upon remand, the fact that the appeals process 17 would take additional time similarly does not persuade the Court to retain jurisdiction. The 18 Court’s adjudication would also take considerable time. The Supreme Court has made 19 clear that “[g]enerally speaking, a court of appeals should remand a case to an agency for 20 decision of a matter that statutes place primarily in agency hands,” noting that this principle 21 “has obvious importance in the immigration context.” I.N.S. v. Orlando Ventura, 537 U.S. 22 12, 16-17, 123 S. Ct. 353, 355, 154 L. Ed. 2d 272 (2002). The Court is not in the business 23 of regularly reviewing and evaluating naturalization applications because this role and 24 expertise generally fall within the purview of USCIS. Specifically, the Court does not 25 regularly conduct extensive background checks and is consequently not in the best position 26 to assess Plaintiff’s moral character. USCIS is in a better position to oversee such an 27 investigation, as well as to compile an administrative record and consistently apply the 28 immigration laws. See Penalosa v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, No. 1 07CV0808 JM(AJB), 2007 WL 2462118, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2007) (citing I.N.S. v. 2 Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002)). 3 The Court also rejects Plaintiff’s argument that “[c]ourts have previously decided 4 naturalization applications under § 1447(b) when security checks are no longer pending, 5 and generally choose to remand to USCIS only when security checks have not been 6 completed.” (ECF No. 9 at 9.) First, the Court is not prepared to “presume” that security 7 checks are complete in Plaintiff’s case. (Id.) Second, the Court agrees with Defendants 8 that courts overwhelmingly exercise the option to remand, not limited to when security 9 checks are no longer pending. Rather, courts generally decide motions for remand by 10 considering the length of time a petitioner’s case had been pending and the alacrity with 11 which USCIS would adjudicate the matter upon remand. See Rashid v. Department of 12 Homeland Security, No. 2:14-CV-2109-JAM-KJN, 2017 WL 1398847, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 13 Apr. 19, 2017) (“In the few cases where a district court opted to adjudicate the matter itself, 14 the application had been pending for a lengthy period and the defendants failed to assure 15 the court that a swift decision could be made on remand.”) 16 In the limited instances in which the length of delay was considerable and USCIS 17 did not provide sufficient assurances of prompt adjudication on remand, certain courts have 18 adjudicated the matter themselves. See, e.g., Taalebinezhaad v. Chertoff, 581 F. Supp. 2d 19 243, 246 (D. Mass. 2008) (petitioner’s naturalization application had been pending for 20 nearly three years and the Court denied the government’s motion to remand because the 21 Court was “unconvinced” that the application “would necessarily be handled with alacrity” 22 upon remand); see also Lifshaz v. Gonzales, No. C06-1470MJP, 2007 WL 1169169, at *2 23 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 19, 2007) (petitioner’s naturalization application had been pending for 24 over three years and the Court denied the government’s motion to remand because it was 25 “disturbed by the possibility that a determination on [petitioner’s] naturalization 26 application w[ould] be endlessly delayed”). Plaintiff filed his Complaint approximately 27 eight months after his naturalization interview. Albeit improper, the length of delay 28 between Plaintiff’s naturalization interview and his Complaint is substantially shorter than 1 ||the delays in the cases to which Plaintiff cites. USCIS committed an inappropriate delay 2 || but has now specified a short timeframe within which it will make a decision upon remand. 3 || Considering USCIS’s ability to promptly and justly adjudicate Plaintiff's application, the 4 || Court concludes there is a strong argument for remand. 5 II. 6 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 7 For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion for Remand is GRANTED. The 8 ||Court remands this action to USCIS for adjudication of Plaintiff's application for 9 naturalization. USCIS is instructed to adjudicate Plaintiff's N-400 application within 30 10 || days of this Order. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: August 31, 2022 2» 13 rn Yn « L4\ 14 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw, Chief Judge United States District Court 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28