UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 23-CV-21817-RAR
AIMAN ISSA,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, et al.,
Defendants. ________________________________________/
ORDER REMANDING CASE TO USCIS
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendants’ Response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause and Motion to Dismiss (“Response”), [ECF No. 5], filed on July 17, 2023, and Plaintiff’s Reply, [ECF No. 6], filed on July 21, 2023. Plaintiff Aiman Issa filed a Complaint and Petition for Hearing on Naturalization (“Petition”), [ECF No. 1], which asks the Court to rule on his application for Naturalization, given the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service’s (“USCIS”) failure to render a decision within 120 days of his December 21, 2021 Naturalization examination. After this Court entered an Order to Show Cause, [ECF No. 4], USCIS issued a decision denying Plaintiff’s naturalization application. See Denial Decision [ECF No. 5-1]. Defendants now move for the Court to dismiss the case as moot. Resp. at 1. The Court having carefully reviewed the Response, Reply, and record, and being otherwise fully advised, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants’ Response and Motion to Dismiss, [ECF No. 5], is DENIED because the filing of the Petition conferred upon the Court exclusive jurisdiction over this matter, and USCIS’s denial of the Petition is null and void. However, the Court REMANDS the matter to USCIS, with instructions. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Aiman Issa is an adult male citizen of Jordan seeking United States citizenship. Pet. ¶ 1. Plaintiff filed an application for naturalization and ultimately attended an interview and passed the necessary exams on December 21, 2021. Id. ¶ 11. However, Plaintiff did not receive
a decision on his application. Id. On March 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed an inquiry with the Miami USCIS Field Office requesting information as to why the office had not yet adjudicated his application. Id. ¶ 12. At the time Plaintiff filed the instant Petition, Plaintiff had not yet received a decision on his application. Id. ¶ 15. On May 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed his Petition, which requests that the Court adjudicate his application for naturalization. The Court issued an Order to Show Cause, requiring Defendants to explain why the Court should not grant Plaintiff’s requested relief. In Defendants’ Response, they explain that USCIS issued a decision denying Plaintiff’s application for naturalization on July 11, 2023, so the Petition is now moot. Resp. at 1–2. Plaintiff now contends that once Plaintiff filed the Petition, this Court had exclusive jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). Reply at 2. Therefore,
Plaintiff argues, the decision by USCIS to deny his application for naturalization—reached after this Court had exclusive jurisdiction—is null and void. LEGAL STANDARD Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447, naturalization applicants may apply to the United States district court for the district in which the applicant resides for a hearing if USCIS fails to make a determination on the application before the end of the 120-day period after the date on which an examination is conducted. 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). “Such court has jurisdiction over the matter and may either determine the matter or remand the matter, with appropriate instructions, to [USCIS] to determine the matter.” Id. ANALYSIS While there is no question that the Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate this matter, see Silebi De Donado v. Swacina, 486 F. Supp. 2d 1360, 1362 (S.D. Fla. 2007), there is a split of authority as to whether a § 1447(b) petition confers exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction on the district court,
see Al-Atiyeh v. Swacina, 650 F. Supp. 2d 1244, 1246 (S.D. Fla. 2009) (collecting cases). In the absence of Eleventh Circuit precedent addressing this question and considering the thorough analysis of § 1447(b) in Al-Atiyeh, the Court finds that § 1447(b) confers exclusive jurisdiction on the district court because the plain language says so. See Ortega Trujillo v. Banco Central Del Ecuador, 379 F.3d 1298, 1302 (11th Cir. 2004) (“The starting point for all statutory interpretation is the language of the statute itself[.]”). The text of the jurisdiction-conferring statute does not use the words “exclusive” or “concurrent” to describe the district court’s jurisdiction. Rather, it states If there is a failure to make a determination under section 1446 of this title before the end of the 120-day period after the date on which the examination is conducted under such section, the applicant may apply to the United States district court for the district in which the applicant resides for a hearing on the matter. Such court has jurisdiction over the matter and may either determine the matter or remand the matter, with appropriate instructions, to the Service to determine the matter.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 23-CV-21817-RAR
AIMAN ISSA,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, et al.,
Defendants. ________________________________________/
ORDER REMANDING CASE TO USCIS
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendants’ Response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause and Motion to Dismiss (“Response”), [ECF No. 5], filed on July 17, 2023, and Plaintiff’s Reply, [ECF No. 6], filed on July 21, 2023. Plaintiff Aiman Issa filed a Complaint and Petition for Hearing on Naturalization (“Petition”), [ECF No. 1], which asks the Court to rule on his application for Naturalization, given the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service’s (“USCIS”) failure to render a decision within 120 days of his December 21, 2021 Naturalization examination. After this Court entered an Order to Show Cause, [ECF No. 4], USCIS issued a decision denying Plaintiff’s naturalization application. See Denial Decision [ECF No. 5-1]. Defendants now move for the Court to dismiss the case as moot. Resp. at 1. The Court having carefully reviewed the Response, Reply, and record, and being otherwise fully advised, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants’ Response and Motion to Dismiss, [ECF No. 5], is DENIED because the filing of the Petition conferred upon the Court exclusive jurisdiction over this matter, and USCIS’s denial of the Petition is null and void. However, the Court REMANDS the matter to USCIS, with instructions. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Aiman Issa is an adult male citizen of Jordan seeking United States citizenship. Pet. ¶ 1. Plaintiff filed an application for naturalization and ultimately attended an interview and passed the necessary exams on December 21, 2021. Id. ¶ 11. However, Plaintiff did not receive
a decision on his application. Id. On March 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed an inquiry with the Miami USCIS Field Office requesting information as to why the office had not yet adjudicated his application. Id. ¶ 12. At the time Plaintiff filed the instant Petition, Plaintiff had not yet received a decision on his application. Id. ¶ 15. On May 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed his Petition, which requests that the Court adjudicate his application for naturalization. The Court issued an Order to Show Cause, requiring Defendants to explain why the Court should not grant Plaintiff’s requested relief. In Defendants’ Response, they explain that USCIS issued a decision denying Plaintiff’s application for naturalization on July 11, 2023, so the Petition is now moot. Resp. at 1–2. Plaintiff now contends that once Plaintiff filed the Petition, this Court had exclusive jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). Reply at 2. Therefore,
Plaintiff argues, the decision by USCIS to deny his application for naturalization—reached after this Court had exclusive jurisdiction—is null and void. LEGAL STANDARD Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447, naturalization applicants may apply to the United States district court for the district in which the applicant resides for a hearing if USCIS fails to make a determination on the application before the end of the 120-day period after the date on which an examination is conducted. 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). “Such court has jurisdiction over the matter and may either determine the matter or remand the matter, with appropriate instructions, to [USCIS] to determine the matter.” Id. ANALYSIS While there is no question that the Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate this matter, see Silebi De Donado v. Swacina, 486 F. Supp. 2d 1360, 1362 (S.D. Fla. 2007), there is a split of authority as to whether a § 1447(b) petition confers exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction on the district court,
see Al-Atiyeh v. Swacina, 650 F. Supp. 2d 1244, 1246 (S.D. Fla. 2009) (collecting cases). In the absence of Eleventh Circuit precedent addressing this question and considering the thorough analysis of § 1447(b) in Al-Atiyeh, the Court finds that § 1447(b) confers exclusive jurisdiction on the district court because the plain language says so. See Ortega Trujillo v. Banco Central Del Ecuador, 379 F.3d 1298, 1302 (11th Cir. 2004) (“The starting point for all statutory interpretation is the language of the statute itself[.]”). The text of the jurisdiction-conferring statute does not use the words “exclusive” or “concurrent” to describe the district court’s jurisdiction. Rather, it states If there is a failure to make a determination under section 1446 of this title before the end of the 120-day period after the date on which the examination is conducted under such section, the applicant may apply to the United States district court for the district in which the applicant resides for a hearing on the matter. Such court has jurisdiction over the matter and may either determine the matter or remand the matter, with appropriate instructions, to the Service to determine the matter.
8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). Nevertheless, the statute expressly confers on the Court the ability to “determine . . . or remand the matter.” Id. (emphasis added). As the Al-Atiyeh court observed, “the power to remand to USCIS implicitly suggests that USCIS lacks jurisdiction at that time.” 650 F. Supp. 2d at 1247 (citing United States v. Hovsepian, 359 F.3d 1144, 1160–63 (9th Cir. 2004)). Because the Court must interpret § 1447(b) to give effect to all words and provisions, see United States v. Canals–Jimenez, 943 F.2d 1284, 1287 (11th Cir. 1991), the plain language of the statute must confer exclusive jurisdiction on the district court. To hold otherwise would render the Court’s power to remand to USCIS meaningless. Accordingly, USCIS’s denial of Plaintiff's application for naturalization—rendered after Plaintiff brought this case—was issued without jurisdiction. Therefore, the July 11, 2023 denial decision is void, and the Court now exercises its Jurisdiction as exclusively conferred by § 1447(b). In exercising its jurisdiction, the Court “may either determine the matter or remand the matter, with appropriate instructions, to [USCIS] to determine the matter.” 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). Here, the Court elects to follow the majority of courts which have remanded similar cases back to USCIS for a final determination. See Silebi De Donado, 486 F. Supp. 2d at 1365 (collecting cases); see also Al-Atiyeh, 650 F. Supp. 2d at 1246; Tabibi v. Mayorkas, No. 21-20590, 2021 WL 7542970, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 30, 2021). CONCLUSION For the reasons previously stated, the Court finds 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the district court, thus nullifying USCIS’s decision on Plaintiff's application for naturalization. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, [ECF No. 5], is DENIED. 2. This case is REMANDED to USCIS for further proceedings. USCIS shall issue a decision on Plaintiff's application for naturalization within 120 days from the date of this Order. 3. The Clerk is directed to mark this case CLOSED. 4. All pending motions are DENIED as moot. DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 15th day of September, 2023.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Page 4 of 4