Wloch v. Jaddou
| Decision Date | 24 October 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 22-cv-00495-NYW |
| Parties | MONIKA WLOCH, Plaintiff, v. UR M. JADDOU, in her official capacity as Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, ANDREW LAMBRECHT, in his official capacity as Field Office Director of the Denver Field Office, and ALEJANDREO MAYORKAS, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Colorado |
ORDER ON MOTION TO REMAND
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Remand and Stay of Responsive Pleading Deadline (the “Motion” or “Motion to Remand”) [Doc 12]. The Court has reviewed the Motion, the related briefing the entire case file, and the applicable case law, and concludes that oral argument would not materially assist in the resolution of this matter. For the following reasons, the Motion to Remand is respectfully GRANTED.
Plaintiff Monika Wloch (“Plaintiff” or “Ms Wloch”) is a native and citizen of Poland and a lawful permanent resident of the United States. [Doc. 1 at 2; Doc 12-1 at ¶ 5]. Ms. Wloch applied for naturalization in the United States on September 25, 2022. [Doc. 1 at ¶ 5; Doc. 12-1 at ¶ 5]. On May 21, 2021, Ms. Wloch was interviewed by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) and passed the English test and U.S. history and government test required for the naturalization process. [Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 5, 16; Doc. 12 at 2; Doc. 1-1 at 1]. At that time, Ms. Wloch was informed that a determination on her application could not yet be made and that USCIS would send her a written decision regarding her application. [Doc. 1-1 at 1].
Ms. Wloch initiated this civil action on February 28, 2022 by filing her Petition for Relief Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) (the “Petition”). See [Doc. 1]. In her Petition, she states that more than 284 days have passed since USCIS's last action in this case, and no determination on her application has been made, even though she has passed the necessary tests and she has no criminal history or physical absences from the United States that would prohibit her ability to naturalize. [Id. at ¶¶ 6, 12-13, 15]. Ms. Wloch requests that the Court rule on her Petition and declare her a naturalized United States citizen under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). See [id. at ¶¶ 10, 22].
Defendants-the Director of USCIS, the Field Office Director of the Denver USCIS Field Office, and the Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security, all sued in their respective official capacities-filed the Motion to Remand on May 2, 2022. [Doc. 12].[1] In the Motion, Defendants represent that during Ms. Wloch's USCIS interview, the interviewing officer “identified concerns with Plaintiff's marriage through which she obtained her lawful permanent residence,” which Defendants represent required an investigation by the USCIS Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate (“FDNS”). [Doc. 12 at 2-3; Doc. 12-1 at ¶¶ 6-7]. Defendants represent that FDNS conducted a comprehensive, months-long investigation into Ms. Wloch's marriage. [Doc. 12 at 3; Doc. 21-1 at ¶ 8]. Through its investigation, FDNS “concluded that Plaintiff's marriage through which she obtained her lawful permanent resident status was fraudulent and entered into for the sole purpose of obtaining an immigration benefit.” [Doc. 12 at 3].[2] On January 18, 2022, FDNS created a Statement of Findings, see [Doc. 12-1 at 7], which was returned with Ms. Wloch's file to the USCIS interviewing officer on February 17, 2022. [Doc. 12-1 at ¶ 10]. Shortly thereafter, Ms. Wloch filed this case. [Doc. 1]. Defendants move the Court to remand this case to USCIS to adjudicate Plaintiff's naturalization application. [Doc. 12 at 4]. They represent that USCIS is “prepared to issue a [Notice of Intent to Deny (“NOID”)] within seven calendar days of the remand and is “committed to making a final decision [on the application] within fourteen calendar days of receiving Plaintiff's response to the NOID.” [Id.; Doc. 12-1 at ¶¶ 12-13].[3]
The naturalization process begins when an applicant files a Form N-400 with USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. § 1445(a); 8 C.F.R. § 334.2. USCIS must then investigate and examine the applicant. See 8 U.S.C. § 1446; 8 C.F.R. §§ 335.1-335.2. Upon examination, USCIS must then make a “determination as to whether the application should be granted or denied, with reasons therefor.” 8 U.S.C. § 1446(d).
If USCIS fails to make a determination on a naturalization application within 120 days of the applicant's examination, “the applicant may apply to the United States district court for the district in which the applicant resides for a hearing on the matter.” 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). After the 120-day waiting period has elapsed and the applicant files a petition in federal court, the 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. “The central purpose of Section 1447(b) was to reduce the waiting time for naturalization applicants by addressing the problem of long backlogs moving through the naturalization process.” Aboeleyoun v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., No. 07-cv-01927-LTB, 2008 WL 1883564, at *2 (D. Colo. Apr. 25, 2008) (quotation omitted).
For courts reviewing naturalization applications under § 1447(b), “remand is often the ordinary course,” though “some courts . . . have elected to exercise their statutory authority . . . particularly in the face of protracted agency delay.” Taalebinezhaad v. Chertoff, 581 F.Supp.2d 243, 246 (D. Mass. 2008); see also Borski v. Lynch, No. 16-cv-00924-RM, 2017 WL 1153997, at *6 (D. Colo. Mar. 27, 2017) (D. Colo. Mar. 27, 2017) (a court should decide a naturalization application only in “narrow circumstances” where USCIS “unnecessarily delays” consideration of the application). “Most courts remand matters back to USCIS with instructions, recognizing the agency's expertise in immigration matters,” Moreno v. Nielsen, No. 17-cv-03146-WJM-MJW, 2018 WL 11446891, at *2 (D. Colo. May 30, 2018), as the “USCIS is better equipped to handle these cases and has more expertise than district courts in adjudicating applications.” Rashid v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., No. 2:14-cv-2109-JAM-KJN, 2017 WL 1398847, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2017).
Should the Court grant a hearing on the naturalization application, the Court reviews the application de novo to determine whether it should be granted. See Sabir v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., No. 07-cv-00914-WYD-MJW, 2008 WL 762242, at *4 (D. Colo. Mar. 19, 2008).
If the Court decides to remand the matter to USCIS, it may do so with conditions as to how USCIS must proceed on remand. See, e.g., Juwale v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., No. 06-cv-01837-LTB-MJW, 2007 WL 622227, at *2 (D. Colo. Feb. 23, 2007).
The Parties do not dispute that over 120 days have passed since Plaintiff's USCIS interview, see [Doc. 1 at ¶ 6; Doc. 12 at 7], and this Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). Thus, the narrow issue before the Court is whether, as Defendants suggest, remand of this case to USCIS for a determination on Plaintiff's naturalization application is appropriate.
Defendants argue that the Court should remand the case because USCIS “[a]s the agency charged with administering the nation's immigration system,” is “in the best position to conduct investigations, gather relevant evidence, and thoroughly evaluate the evidence to determine an applicant's eligibility for naturalization.” [Doc. 12 at 4]. Defendants note that USCIS has not yet issued an NOID and Plaintiff has not yet had an opportunity to respond to an NOID with additional evidence, and argue that if she does present such additional evidence in response to USCIS's anticipated NOID, USCIS will be in the best position to evaluate that evidence and make a decision on Plaintiff's application in the first instance. [Id. at 5]. Finally, Defendants note that Ms. Wloch “may still avail herself of this Court's review if USCIS ultimately denies her application.” [Id. at 7]; see also 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) ().
In her Response to the Motion to Remand, Ms. Wloch first argues that this Court has jurisdiction over this case and maintains that “Defendants have failed to produce controlling authority that requires a remand in this case, and in fact, the cases they rely upon reinforce the premise that remand is not warranted in this case.” [Doc. 15 at 5]. She further asserts that Defendants had sufficient time to issue a decision on her naturalization application and, “having failed to do so, they must now make their arguments to this Court, instead of solely to [Plaintiff] herself.” [Id.]. And finally, Plaintiff argues that judicial economy will be served by denying the Motion to Remand and keeping the case in federal court. [Id. at 6].
The Court respectfully agrees with Defendants that remand is appropriate in this case. First and foremost, USCIS is in the best position to evaluate Plaintiff's application and the evidence in this case. See Zhang v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., No. CV 17-706 (EGS), 2017 WL 3190559, at *2 (D.D.C. July 26, 2017) (); Mahd v. Chertoff, No 06-cv-01023-WDM-PAC, 2007 WL 891867, at *3 (D. Colo. Mar. 22, 2007) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial