(PS) Al Jassim v. Mayorkas et al, No. 2:2024cv00288 - Document 12 (E.D. Cal. 2024)

Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 04/25/2024 VACATING the 05/22/2024 hearing and RECOMMENDING that the 9 Motion to Remand be granted. Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Murphy, J)

Download PDF

(PS) Al Jassim v. Mayorkas et al Doc. 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ABDULLAH IMAD AL JASSIM, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 No. 2:24-cv-00288 KJM AC v. ORDER and ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS and UR JADDOU, FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff filed this action on January 23, 2024 pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), asking the 18 19 court to conduct a hearing and make a determination on his naturalization application because 20 defendants failed to act on the application within 120 days following his naturalization interview. 21 ECF No. 1 at 1-2. On February 8, 2024, defendants, who are federal officials sued in their 22 official capacities as representatives of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), 23 moved to remand this case to USCIS under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). ECF No. 9. Plaintiff did not 24 oppose the motion. Defendants request that the court enter an order of remand pursuant to 8 25 U.S.C. § 1447(b), requiring USCIS complete the adjudication on plaintiff’s application within 15 26 days; they confirm in their reply brief that USCIS is prepared to complete the adjudication of 27 plaintiff’s naturalization application within 15 days of entry of the remand order. ECF No. 11 at 28 2. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Once a lawsuit is filed under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), the court has exclusive jurisdiction over 2 the matter. See U.S. v. Hovsepian, 359 F.3d 1144, 1160 (9th Cir. 2004). The statute grants the 3 court authority to make a judicial determination of naturalization or remand the matter to USCIS 4 with instructions to adjudicate. See 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) (“the court has jurisdiction over the 5 matter and may either determine the matter or remand the matter, with appropriate instructions, to 6 the [USCIS] to determine the matter.”). The decision whether to remand is entirely within this 7 Court’s discretion. Hovsepian, 359 F.3d at 1161. It appears clear in this case, given defendants’ 8 representations, that remand serves the interests of all parties. Plaintiff has not opposed remand. 9 Accordingly, the undersigned recommends this case be remanded to USCIS with an instruction 10 that it adjudicate plaintiff’s naturalization application within 15 days of remand. 11 12 Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that the motion hearing set for May 22, 2024 (ECF No. 10) is VACATED. Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that 13 1. That defendants’ motion for remand (ECF No. 9) be GRANTED and this action be 14 remanded to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services with instructions to adjudicate 15 plaintiff’s naturalization application within 15 days of remand; and 16 2. That this case be closed. 17 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 18 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 19 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 20 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Id.; see also Local Rule 304(b). Such a 21 document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 22 Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be filed with the court and served on all 23 parties within fourteen days after service of the objections. Local Rule 304(d). Failure to file 24 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 25 //// 26 //// 27 //// 28 //// 2 1 Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156–57 2 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 DATED: April 25, 2024 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.