DHONDUP NAMGYAL v. Jaddou

Background

Dhondup Namgyal petitioned for judicial review of his naturalization application under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). He alternatively asked the court to require U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to adjudicate the application under the Mandamus Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. Namgyal had filed his naturalization application around December 4, 2020, and completed his USCIS interview on February 4, 2022. No further action had occurred on the application before he filed this case.

USCIS acknowledged that the application had remained pending longer than the average processing time at the San Francisco field office. The defendants attributed the delay to an investigation into Namgyal’s eligibility, including whether he had been lawfully admitted for permanent residence. They represented that the investigation had concluded and that USCIS was not aware of any basis preventing approval of the application. The defendants proposed sending the matter back to USCIS with a commitment to adjudicate it within 30 days.

Remand to USCIS

Section 1447(b) permits a district court to decide a naturalization matter or send it back to USCIS with appropriate instructions when USCIS has not acted within 120 days after the applicant’s examination. The court found that it had jurisdiction because more than 120 days had passed after Namgyal’s February 4, 2022 interview.

The court decided that USCIS should determine the application in the first instance. It relied on USCIS’s expertise in investigating, fact-finding, and deciding naturalization applications. The court also found that the agency had explained the delay, had completed its investigation, and had committed to deciding the application within 30 days. The court found no reason to conclude that the investigation was unnecessary or that it unlawfully or improperly gathered information by questioning Namgyal’s former wife and her current partner. The court also concluded that the delay was not comparable to the longer delays in cases where courts had refused remand.

Requested Mandamus Relief

Namgyal alternatively asked that, if the case were remanded, the court order USCIS to grant his naturalization application and place him in line for an oath ceremony within 15 days. The court concluded that this relief was inconsistent with Section 1447(b), which permits the court either to decide the matter or to remand it for USCIS to decide. The court also held that mandamus—an extraordinary order requiring an official to perform a clearly established duty—was not appropriate. USCIS has a nondiscretionary duty to reach a decision, but deciding what that decision should be is different and discretionary.

Name Change

Namgyal asked the court to correct his legal name from “FNU Dhondup Namgyal” to “Dhondup Namgyal,” or to instruct USCIS to correct the name if the case was remanded. The court concluded that this issue did not require it to retain jurisdiction because defendants represented that, if USCIS approved the application, a process existed to ensure that the correct name appeared on the naturalization certificate.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ Motion to Remand in its entirety. It ordered USCIS to adjudicate Namgyal’s naturalization application within 30 days of the September 21, 2023 order. The order did not decide whether Namgyal would receive citizenship.