Elias v. Pierre

Opinion

1 5 □ 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 || FARES ELIAS, Case No.: 22cv1012-JO-RBB Plaintits,| ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 || V. REMAND TO U.S. CITIZENSHIP LANs OW isis econ US: | AND ORDERING ADJUDICATION 15 al. WITHIN 30 DAYS 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 On August 1, 2020, Plaintiff Fares Elias filed an application for naturalization □□□□ 20 |{the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS” or the “Service”). Nearly twe 21 |/years later, Plaintiff filed this case seeking judicial review and adjudication of hi: 22 ||naturalization application under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). Defendants moved to remand tc 23 ||USCIS on the ground that it is ready and able to adjudicate Plaintiffs naturalizatior 24 |; application within 30 days after remand. For the following reasons, the Court grants the 25 Defendants’ motion to remand to USCIS. 26 27 28 1 For people who were born outside of the United States and are lawful permanent 2 ||residents of the United States, naturalization is the process required to become a United 3 ||States citizen. A naturalization applicant initiates the process by filing a naturalization 4 |\application form (“N-400”) with USCIS. 8 U.S.C. § 1445. USCIS is the division of the 5 Department of Homeland Security that is responsible for adjudicating naturalization 6 || applications. See 6 U.S.C. § 271(b)(2); see also 6 U.S.C. § 111(a). After a naturalization 7 application is filed, USCIS investigates and interviews the applicant before making its 8 determination. 8 U.S.C. § 1446. Section 1447(b) permits a naturalization applicant to file 9 petition for a judicial determination on the application if USCIS fails to make its 10 ||determination “before the end of the 120-day period after the date on which the 11 ||examination is conducted.” 8 U.S.C. § 1477(b). In such cases, the Court has the discretion 12 “either determine the matter or remand the matter, with appropriate instructions, to the 13 || Service to determine the matter.” 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) (emphasis added); see also □□□□□□ 14 || States v. Hovsepian, 359 F.3d 1144, 1160 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Congress empowered the 15 || district court to remand the matter to [USCIS] with the court’s instructions”) (emphasis in 16 || original); Kuzova v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Security, 686 F. App’x. 506, 507-08 (9th Cir. 17 2017) (holding in part that the district court did not abuse its discretion in remanding a 18 || naturalization application to USCIS with appropriate instructions, even without making 19 || findings of fact prior to remand). 20 The Court exercises its discretion to remand Plaintiff's naturalization application for 21 ||determination by the USCIS despite its previous delay. First and most importantly, the 22 ||Service is prepared to adjudicate Plaintiffs naturalization application within 30 days of 23 |}remand. USCIS submitted the declaration of Lee Hauserman, a USCIS Supervisory 24 Immigration Services Officer familiar with Plaintiffs file, stating that “USCIS can issue a 25 decision on Plaintiff's N-400 within 30 days of this Court’s order dismissing or remanding 26 ||the case to USCIS.” Dkt. 4-2 at 992, 4. Second, USCIS’s subject matter expertise in 27 ||reviewing and adjudicating naturalization applications weighs in favor of remanding. 28 ||USCIS is the agency responsible for, and experienced at, applying the federal code and 1 ||regulations to naturalization applications. See 8 U.S.C. § 1421 (vesting the Attorney 2 ||General with authority to naturalize persons); see also INS v. Orlando Ventura, 537 U.S. 3 ||} 12, 16-17 (2002) (noting the agency’s expertise in the subject matter). Because USCIS 4 ||has declared its readiness to imminently adjudicate Plaintiffs naturalization application, 5 ||the Court concludes remand to the USCIS, the agency with experience and expertise in 6 || processing these applications, is preferable to the Court’s adjudication of this matter in the 7 instance. See, e.g., Rashid v. Dep’t of Homeland Security, No. 2:14-cv-2109-JAM- 8 || KIN, 2017 WL 1398847, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2017); Usude v. Napolitano, No. CV- 9 || 13-4892-DSF-RZX, 2013 WL 12212605, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2013). 10 Plaintiff argues that the Court should retain jurisdiction despite USCIS’s stated 11 }||commitment to quickly process this application, because USCIS will treat him unfairly and 12 ||deny his application. The Court finds his concerns that USCIS will fail to “follow the 13 applicable case precedents and adjudicate Petitioner’s naturalization application in good 14 || faith” to be premature. Dkt. 9 at | 15. Moreover, if Plaintiff's naturalization application 15 ||is improperly denied, he may seek judicial review under 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c). 16 For these reasons, the Court remands this case to USCIS and orders that USCIS 17 adjudicate Plaintiff's N-400 application within thirty days of the date this Order is filed. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 || Dated: Mt 1g f 2 da : eee 20 Hon. Jipisdok Ohta United’States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28