Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantjurisdictionstatutehearingmotionnaturalizationmotion to dismiss
plaintiffdefendantjurisdictionstatutehearingmotionnaturalizationmotion to dismiss

Related Cases

Asmai v. Johnson
View Case »
Rabang v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Artee Corp., Matter of
View Case »
Hann, Matter of
View Case »
Huiwu Lai v. U.S.
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Shendaj v. Dedvukaj

Facts

Mr. Shendaj and Ms. Elias, husband and wife, citizens of Iraq, and lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence, filed applications for naturalization on February 3, 2006. They were interviewed by the CIS on June 19, 2006. That same day, Mr. Shendaj and Ms. Elias were informed that they passed the English basic, United States history, and United States government proficiency examinations, but a decision on their applications could not be made until the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) completed a security name check. Although CIS submitted Mr. Shendaj's and Ms. Elias's name check requests to the FBI on or about February 20, 2006, CIS had not received the results of either name check request as of December 20, 2007.

Mr. Shendaj and Ms. Elias, husband and wife, citizens of Iraq, and lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence, filed applications for naturalization on February 3, 2006. They were interviewed by the CIS on June 19, 2006. That same day, Mr. Shendaj and Ms. Elias were informed that they passed the English basic, United States history, and United States government proficiency examinations, but a decision on their applications could not be made until the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) completed a security name check. Although CIS submitted Mr. Shendaj's and Ms. Elias's name check requests to the FBI on or about February 20, 2006, CIS had not received the results of either name check request as of December 20, 2007.

Issue

Whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the plaintiffs' claims regarding the delay in processing their naturalization applications.

Whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the plaintiffs' claims regarding the delay in processing their naturalization applications.

Rule

Under 8 U.S.C. 1447(b), if there is a failure to make a determination under section 1446 before the end of the 120-day period after the date on which the examination is conducted, the applicant may apply to the United States district court for a hearing on the matter.

Under 8 U.S.C. 1447(b), if there is a failure to make a determination under section 1446 before the end of the 120-day period after the date on which the examination is conducted, the applicant may apply to the United States district court for a hearing on the matter.

Analysis

The court analyzed the language of 8 U.S.C. 1447(b) and concluded that the initial interview of the naturalization applicant triggers the 120-day period set forth in the statute. The court rejected the defendants' argument that the 120-day period does not begin until the FBI completes its security name check, stating that the examination occurs on a particular, identifiable date, which is the date of the initial interview.

The court analyzed the language of 8 U.S.C. 1447(b) and concluded that the initial interview of the naturalization applicant triggers the 120-day period set forth in the statute. The court rejected the defendants' argument that the 120-day period does not begin until the FBI completes its security name check, stating that the examination occurs on a particular, identifiable date, which is the date of the initial interview.

Conclusion

The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction but granted the motion to the extent that it requested a remand of plaintiffs' complaint to CIS for a prompt determination on the applications.

The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction but granted the motion to the extent that it requested a remand of plaintiffs' complaint to CIS for a prompt determination on the applications.

Who won?

The plaintiffs prevailed in part as the court held that it had subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate their claims due to the delay in processing their applications.

The plaintiffs prevailed in part as the court held that it had subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate their claims due to the delay in processing their applications.

You must be