Opinion
2:21-cv-08019-MEMF(GJSx)
07-13-2022
SIRINAPA NOGAMI, Plaintiff, v. MERRICK GARLAND, in his Official Capacity, Attorney General of the United States ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, in his Official Capacity, Secretary of Homeland Security; UR M. JADDOU, in her Official Capacity, Director United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO REMAND [ECF NO. 16]
MAAMEEWUSI-MENSAH FRIMPONG United States District Judge.
Before the Court is the Motion to Remand filed by Defendants Merrick Garland, in his Official Capacity, Attorney General of the United States Attorney General of the United States; Alejandro Mayorkas, in his Official Capacity, Secretary of Homeland Security; and Ur M. Jaddou, in her Official Capacity, Director, United States Citizenship and Immigration. ECF No. 16. For the reasons stated herein, the Court hereby GRANTS the Motion.
Unless otherwise indicated, the following facts are derived from the Complaint. ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”).
Plaintiff Sirinapa Nogami (“Nogami”) is a native and citizen of Thailand and, as of August 4, 2015, a lawful permanent resident of the United States. Compl. ¶¶ 1, 4. She currently resides in Sherman Oaks, California with her husband and child. Id. ¶ 8.
On September 20, 2019, Nogami filed a Form N-400 Application for Naturalization (the “Application”) with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). Id. ¶ 17. She was interviewed by USCIS officials on November 6, 2020. Id. One week later, on November 13, 2020, USCIS requested additional information concerning the schools that Nogami attended in the United States. Motion to Remand, ECF No. 16 (“Motion” or “Mot.”) at 3. On February 5, 2021, Nogami responded to the request in a timely manner and provided the necessary documentation (“Feb. 5, 2021 Documents”). Id.; Compl. ¶ 17.
However, USCIS failed to render a decision on Nogami's application for six more months; as a result, the Application was pending for roughly eleven months. See generally Compl. (indicating that Nogami's application remained pending as of the date of filing).
II. Procedural Background
On October 7, 2021, Nogami filed the present action against Attorney General of the United States Merrick Garland, Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, and Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Ur M. Jaddou (collectively, “USCIS” or the “Agency”), requesting that this Court assume jurisdiction over her naturalization application pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) or, in the alternative, remand this matter to USCIS to adjudication within 30 days of this Order. Id. ¶¶ 19-37; id. Prayer at 1-6. Specifically, Nogami requests: (1) a naturalization determination pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447; (2) mandamus; and (3) declaratory judgment that the Defendants have violated the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(1) and the Immigration and Nationality Act. Compl. ¶¶ 19-37. On February 10, 2022, USCIS filed the present Motion to Remand. Mot. The Motion was fully briefed as of February 25, 2022. ECF No. 16 (“Opposition” or “Opp'n”); ECF No. 20 (“Reply”). The Court held oral argument in this matter on July 7, 2022.
III. Applicable Law
8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) entitles a naturalization applicant to “apply to the United States district court for the district in which the applicant resides for a hearing on a matter,” if USCIS fails to make a determination on a naturalization application within 120 days of the applicant's examination interview. 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). The relevant district court has exclusive jurisdiction over the matter and may “either determine the matter or remand the matter, with appropriate instructions, to the Service to determine the matter.” United States v. Hovsepian, 359 F.3d 1144, 1160 (9th Cir. 2004); 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). The decision whether to remand is entirely within this Court's discretion. Hovsepian, 359 F.3d at 1161.
IV. Discussion
The parties do not dispute that, at the time the Complaint was filed, nearly 11 months-far more than the 120-day threshold- have elapsed since Nogami's November 2020 naturalization interview, making this action proper. However, USCIS requests that the Court exercise its discretion and remand this case to USCIS “so that the agency may fulfill its statutory duty of adjudicating Nogami's naturalization application while employing USCIS's institutional expertise.” Mot. at 4. USCIS further argues that granting remand would “obviously expediate the resolution of . . . the application as well as conserve judicial resources.” Id. at 5. In response, Nogami argues that the Court should exercise its discretion and retain jurisdiction as Nogami has “met all the requirements for naturalization.” Opp'n at 4. She further maintains that USCIS has failed to give a “clear reason as to why her application was not adjudicated timely” or a “clear reason for the need to interview her again.” Id.
A. Taalebinezhaad and Chertoff Are Inapposite
Nogami cites to two cases, Taalebinezhaad v. Chertoff, 581 F.Supp.2d 243 (D. Mass. 2008) and Yith v. Nielsen, 343 F.Supp.3d 938 (E.D. Cal. 2018), in support of her argument that the Court should retain jurisdiction because she has “met all the requirements for naturalization.” Id. at 4. However, the Court finds both cases inapposite.
First, in Taalebinezhaad, the court declined to remand after adjudication was delayed for over two years because the court was “unconvinced . . . that the application would necessarily be handled with alacrity if' remand were granted. 581 F.Supp.2d at 246. In the present action, Nogami's application was pending for eleven months at the time of the filing of the Complaint-a shorter period than the two years at issue in Taalebinezhaad. Moreover, USCIS contends that in January 2022, it informed Nogami that it was prepared to both schedule a second interview regarding the substance of the Feb. 5, 2021 Documents “immediately” and, subject to said interview, adjudicate Nogami's application within thirty days of remand. Declaration of John Holland, ECF No. 16-1 (“Holland Decl.”) ¶ 4; Declaration of Damon A. Thayer, ECF No. 16-2 (“Thayer Decl”) ¶ 4; February 3, 2022 Email Between Scott A. Emerick and Damon A. Thayer, Thayer Decl., Ex. A (“Feb. 3, 2022 Email”). Additionally, USCIS has proposed a specific set of terms upon which Nogami's application would be adjudicated upon remand. Stipulation for Order Remanding Case to United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Thayer Decl., Ex. B (“Stipulation and Order”). The proposed Stipulation and Order indicate that “USCIS shall take any and all necessary actions to adjudicate [Nogami's] N-400 Application for Naturalization and issue a decision within 30 days after entry of this order of remand.” Id. Unlike in Taalebinezhaad where USCIS did not indicate that plaintiffs application would be handled expeditiously, here, USCIS has proposed a specific timeline for adjudication. As such, the Court does not have similar concerns.
Second, in Yith, the court declined to remand, in part, because plaintiffs' application had been pending for more than three years, USCIS had previously issued a notice of intent to deny naturalization, and USCIS had represented to the court three years earlier that it would make a naturalization decision within 120 days of the applicant's interview. Id. at 948-49 & n.11. These facts, the court found, “indicat[e] that USCIS will deny the naturalization applications,” meaning that remanding “would only serve to further delay the district court's review of the matter and add an additional layer of administrative review.” Id. at 949. The facts at bar are distinguishable. First, as previously discussed, when this action commenced, Nogami's application had been pending for eleven months. Next, USCIS has shed no light on its intent to deny or grant Nogami's application. Nogami argues that the second interview appears unnecessary and that the initial interview was “much longer than typical citizenship interviews and took an unnecessarily hostile tone.” Opp'n at 2. However, these circumstances do not rise to the same level of intent to deny as was found in Yith. Moreover, it appears that in this case, at one point USCIS clarified that it intended to focus the second interview primarily on the content of the Feb. 5, 2021 Documents and to questions relating to Nogami's educational background in the United States. See Mot. at 4. Further, as USCIS has not completed a full review of the information in the Feb. 5, 2021 Documents, the Court does not find that remand would subject Nogami to unnecessary administrative review.
These representations were made in the context of the parties discussions as to a possible stipulation to remand. In a February 3, 2022 email between Nogami's counsel and USCIS, USCIS proposed that it “focus” the second interview on the “new evidence or information” Nogami provided in February 2021 and that “the second interview is a continuation of the first interview, not to rehash anything completed in the first interview.” February 3, 2022 Email Between Scott A. Emerick and Damon A. Thayer, ECF No. 16-2, Ex. A (“February 3, 2022 Email”).
Moreover, the Court-without access to the Feb. 5, 2021 documents and in recognition of the fact that USCIS's specialized knowledge in the context of immigration determinations-cannot determine whether the documents are indeed “self-explanatory.” See I.N.S. v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-17 (2002) (acknowledging that the immigration agency of the Executive Branch has particular expertise in evaluating evidence submitted in support of an immigration application); Opp'n at 3.
Neither case supports adjudication by the Court in this instance. To the contrary, the courts in those cases emphasized that remand is the normal course in the absence of factors such as those present in those cases and not present in Nogami's case.
B. The Court Gives Deference to USCIS's Expertise
The Supreme Court has held that courts should remand a case “to an agency for decision of a matter that statutes place primarily in agency hands” and that this principle “has obvious importance in the immigration context.” Ventura, 537 U.S. at 16-17. Although it is clear that USCIS did not adjudicate Nogami's application within the requisite 120 days, the Court, exercising its discretion, finds that remand is proper. Indeed, Nogami's application was pending for only eleven months and as Nogami has submitted additional documents in support of her application, there are new facts that must be evaluated prior to issuing a final determination on her application. Further, USCIS has outlined a concrete plan for moving forward with the adjudication of Nogami's application. As such, the Court finds that remand would serve the dual purpose of ensuring expeditious adjudication of Nogami's application and allow USCIS to utilize its specialized expertise to perform a full analysis of the record.
Courts routinely remand actions to USCIS for adjudication when USCIS has not met the 120-day deadline. See, e.g., Runfang Yan v. Campangnolo, No. CV 17-8656-MWF (RAOx), 2018 WL 6265040, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2018); Singh v. Crawford, No. 1:13-cv-01895 MJS, 2014 WL 12778556, *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 7. 2018) (granting remand even though USCIS had “exceed[ed] the 120 day requirement more than four times over” because USCIS “maintains it is nevertheless moving the case forward diligently and attaches a declaration reflecting its initiation of corrective action.”).
To the extent Nogami desires expeditious adjudication of her naturalization application, the Court finds that retaining jurisdiction would only delay the process. Indeed, USCIS has indicated that it is prepared to conduct the requested second interview and issue a final determination on Nogami's application within thirty days of this Order. Mot. at 5. Based on this proposed timeline, Nogami will obtain a final decision on her application by August of this year, far sooner than it would likely take for the district court to complete a full de novo review of her record.
The Court is sympathetic to the fact that Nogami's immigration application has been pending well beyond the 120-day mark. The Court recognizes that the delay has potentially placed Nogami and her family “in a state of limbo” as they await a final decision on her naturalization. Compl. ¶ 34. However, in recognition of the Supreme Court's guidance of the “obvious importance” that immigration matters should first be handled by USCIS, Ventura, 537 U.S. at 16-17, and the fact that USCIS indicates that it is ready to both interview Nogami and provide her with a final determination within thirty days, the Court finds that remand is proper.
Similarly, even crediting Nogami's description of her first interview as lasting “much longer than typical citizenship interviews” and taking an “unnecessarily hostile tone,” Opposition at 2, the Court has identified no legal basis upon which to limit the scope of the second interview as requested by Nogami. At the hearing, Nogami's counsel raised two concerns regarding permitting USCIS to question Nogami about topics already addressed in the first interview: (1) Nogami might inadvertently provide different responses and USCIS might improperly deny her application on that basis; and (2) the USCIS officer's notes of either interview might be inaccurate, leading USCIS to conclude erroneously that Nogami gave conflicting answers to the same question, causing USCIS to improperly deny her application on that basis.
Not only is this Court loathe to intrude upon the investigatory function of USCIS on remand, but these and the other concerns raised can all be more properly addressed on a full record upon judicial review if Nogami's application is denied. The Court declines the invitation to limit the scope of the second interview as requested, and that request is DENIED.
See also Soebinta v. Martin, 2013 WL 12441495 (C.D. Cal., Mar. 14, 2013) (declining to limit the scope of USCIS's investigation of an applicant upon remand as the requested limitation ran contrary to statute).
V. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS USCIS's Motion to Remand and DENIES Nogami's request to limit the scope of the second interview. USCIS is ORDERED deliver a final determination on Nogami's Application no later than thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. Failure to do so may result in the Court re-asserting jurisdiction over this action.
The Court trusts that if USCIS fails to issue a decision on Nogami's Application within thirty (30) days after entry of this Order, USCIS will not oppose any request by Nogami to this Court to vacate this remand order, and thereby re-assert jurisdiction over Nogami's action pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.