1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ABDUL SATAR HAKIMI, Case No. 2:24-cv-1020-CSK 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO REMAND 14 UR M. JADOU, et al., (ECF No. 6) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Abdul Satar Hakimi files this immigration action seeking judicial review of 18 his application for naturalization. Pending before the Court is Federal Defendants’ 19 motion to remand to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to 20 adjudicate Plaintiff’s naturalization application.1 (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff filed an opposition 21 and Federal Defendants filed a reply. (ECF Nos. 9, 10.) This matter is appropriate for 22 decision without oral argument, and the Court vacates the August 13, 2024 hearing. E.D. 23 Cal. L.R. 230(g). For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to 24 remand this action to USCIS with instruction to adjudicate Plaintiff’s naturalization 25 application within 120 days of the date of this order. 26 / / / 27 1 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to

(c) on the 28 consent of all parties. (ECF No. 12.) 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 Pursuant to

(b), Plaintiff filed his complaint on April 4, 2024 3 seeking judicial review of his naturalization application, which was filed on May 24, 2022. 4 Compl. ¶ 8 (ECF No. 1). On September 23, 2022, USCIS interviewed Plaintiff.

. 5 As of the filing of his complaint, Plaintiff has not yet received a final determination of his 6 naturalization application.

The parties met and conferred, but were unable to reach 7 an agreement. Defs. Mot. at 2. On June 10, 2024, Defendants, federal officials sued in 8 their official capacity, filed the underlying motion to remand this action to USCIS with 9 instruction to adjudicate Plaintiff’s naturalization application within 120 days. 10 II. DISCUSSION 11 When an individual submits an application for naturalization and the USCIS fails 12 to make a determination on that application within 120 days after the agency’s interview 13 of the applicant, the applicant may apply to the district court for a hearing on the matter. 14

(b). The district court then “has [exclusive] jurisdiction over the matter 15 and may either determine the matter or remand the matter, with appropriate instructions, 16 to the [agency] to determine the matter.” Id.; United States v. Hovsepian,

, 17 1164 (9th Cir. 2004). Generally, the court should “remand a case to an agency for 18 decision of a matter that statutes place primarily in agency hands.” I.N.S. v. Orlando 19 Ventura,

(2002). “[J]udicial deference to the Executive Branch is 20 especially appropriate in the immigration context[.]” I.N.S. v. Aguirre-Aguirre,

415, 425 (1999). “[T]he executive branch is in a better position than [the] court to 22 oversee [an applicant's] background investigation, to compile an administrative record, 23 and to consistently apply the immigration laws.” Penalosa v. United States Citizenship 24 and Immigration Services,

, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2007). 25 Federal Defendants move to remand this action to USCIS with instruction to 26 adjudicate Plaintiff’s naturalization application within 120 days. Defs. Mot. at 3. Federal 27 Defendants argue that the executive branch is uniquely situated to determine 28 naturalization and that the 120-day timeline is reasonable because USCIS anticipates 1 that a re-interview will be required and the district court regularly grants remands to 2 USCIS of similar lengths.

Though Plaintiff opposes remand, Plaintiff agrees that 3 “USCIS is generally better suited to determine eligibility for naturalization.” Pl. Opp. at 3 4 (ECF No. 9). Plaintiff alternatively requests remand with a 30-day timeline.

Plaintiff 5 relies on Louayme v. Mayorkas,

(E.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2023), adopted in 6 full by,

(E.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2023), to argue that a 30-day timeline is 7 more appropriate. Pl. Opp. at 4. While Plaintiff is correct that a 30-day remand timeline 8 was ordered in Louayme, in that case, the agency indicated that it was prepared to 9 adjudicate the application within 30 days. Louayme,

at *2. 10 While Plaintiff’s concerns about delay are not without merit, under similar 11 circumstances, the majority of district courts have remanded to USCIS for adjudication. 12 See Rashid v. Dep’t of Homeland Security,

, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 13 2017) (“Although Plaintiff’s application had been pending for nearly two years when 14 Plaintiff filed his complaint, remand is the appropriate course of action in this case.”); 15 Shahri v. USCIS Sacramento Field Office,

, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 25, 16 2022) (recommending remand with instructions to complete adjudication within 120 days 17 of order), adopted in full by,

(E.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2022); 18 Sayyedalhosseini v. USCIS Sacramento Field Office,

, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 19 May 25, 2022) (same); Gill v. Crawford,

, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2016) 20 (granting government’s motion for a 60-day remand). Here, “USCIS now assures the 21 Court that adjudication will be completed within 120 days from the date of an order to 22 remand.” Defs. Mot. at 3. In addition, courts have reasoned that USCIS is better 23 equipped to handle these cases and has more expertise than district courts in 24 adjudicating applications. See, e.g., Deng v. Chertoff,

, at *1 (N.D. 25 Cal. May 22, 2007). 26 Like the majority of district courts that have remanded naturalization applications 27 to USCIS, this Court agrees that “the executive branch is in a better position than this 28 Court to decide Plaintiff's naturalization [a]pplication.” Singh v. Crawford,

| 1116989, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2014); see also Shahri,

at *2; 2 || Sayyedalhosseini,

at *2; Rashid,

at *2; Gill, 2016 3 | WL 880952 at *2; Penalosa,

, at *2; Deng,

at *1. 4 | The Court also agrees that the 120-day timeline is reasonable because USCIS 5 | anticipates that a re-interview will be required and USCIS has assured the Court that the 6 | adjudication of Plaintiff's naturalization application will be completed within 120 days. 7 | Ul. ©CONCLUSION 8 The Court grants Federal Defendants’ motion to remand this action to USCIS with 9 || instruction to adjudicate Plaintiffs naturalization application within 120 days of the date 10 || of this order. 11 12 | Dated: August 12, 2024 C iy S \U 13 CHI S00 KIM 44 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28