Nearly three years after applying for naturalization, plaintiff had still not received an appointment to be interviewed for citizenship, the next step in his naturalization process. On February 1, 2007, represented by private counsel, plaintiff petitioned the U.S. District Court for the district of Pennsylvania to compel U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) to schedule him for an interview and to render a decision on his citizenship application within thirty days. The case was assigned to District Court Judge Michael M. Baylson.

Administratively, plaintiff was in a complicated position: under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1101, et. seq, naturalization applicants have a right to petition the district courts if their application is denied or if they do not receive a response within 120 days of their interview. Here, as the plaintiff had never actually received an interview, he met neither requirement, leaving him in an application limbo. Therefore, plaintiff asked the courts to consider the extended delay a constructive denial of his application and to invoke its right to review under the INA. Alternatively, plaintiff suggested that the court might invoke either the Administrative Procedure Act or its mandamus powers to compel USCIS to perform its duty of conducting citizenship appointments.

In January 2018, the court became aware that it had six nearly identical cases, including this one, and held a hearing on all cases simultaneously. In a following memorandum and order, the court suggested that the government, "overwhelmed by these applications, ha(d) adopted a strategy of favoring delay by litigation, instead of developing an orderly and transparent administrative resolution." The court recommended that all six plaintiffs cross-file for summary judgment and enjoined the USCIS from preemptively resolving any of their immigration cases, thus mooting the cases, before a final judgment could be filed.

One month later, the court granted the plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment, finding that the FBI name check procedure which had delayed their applications was not authorized by statute and was thus reviewable as an administrative procedure.

USCIS filed an emergency motion to stay the order and was denied. Plaintiff was naturalized on March 12, 2008, at which point the parties agreed to dismiss the case as moot. The court entered the stipulated order of dismissal on March 20, 2008. The case is closed.

Mike Fagan - 07/02/2008
Sean Drohan - 06/13/2021


compress summary