UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
[USDC DISTRICT]
[CITY, STATE]
CLIENT,
Plaintiff,
v.
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General of the United States; MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; XXX, Director, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services; YYY, District Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES,
Defendants.
Case No.
COMPLAINT FOR NATURALIZATION
1. This is a lawsuit brought by CLIENT, to obtain naturalization by this court pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1447(b). This court has exclusive jurisdiction to make a determination on his applications, since it is more than 120 days since interview by United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. Plaintiff requests that the Court grant his naturalization applications, and give them his oaths of citizenship. He meet all the statutory eligibility requirements for citizenship.
2. Plaintiff have requested a copy of his immigration files, as guaranteed by the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). Defendants have failed to respond to the request and to produce the file within 10 days, as required by law. Plaintiff seeks to compel the disclosure and release of agency records improperly withheld from plaintiff by Defendants.
PARTIES
2. Plaintiff CLIENT is a citizen of _______________ and a permanent resident since _______________. He resides in _______________, ____. He is married to, and resides with, his wife, _____, and his U.S. citizen children, ___ and___. He seeks an order granting him citizenship and also seeks the release of information requested on his behalf under the Freedom of Information Act.
3. Defendant Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States, has been conferred the authority to naturalize persons as citizens of the United States by INA § 310(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1421(a), and is sued here in his official capacity.
4. Defendant Michael Chertoff is the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”). As of March 1, 2003, DHS is the agency responsible for implementing the Immigration and Nationality Act. Within DHS, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“CIS”), formerly part of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, is now responsible for implementing the provisions under which lawful permanent residents can be naturalized and become United States citizens, in particular INA § 310, 8 U.S.C. § 1421, et. seq. Respondent Chertoff is sued in his official capacity.
5. Defendant XXX is Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, a component of the Department of Homeland Security. USCIS is now responsible for implementing the provisions under which lawful permanent residents can be naturalized and become United States citizens, in particular INA § 310, 8 U.S.C. § 1421, et. seq. Respondent XXXe is sued in his official capacity.
6. Defendant YYY is the District Director of the ______ District of Citizenship and Immigration Services of the Department of Homeland Security, formerly the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and is sued here in his official capacity. Mr. YYY has been delegated authority, under 8 C.F.R. § 310.2, to control all activities within the ____ District, including the authority to grant or deny naturalization applications.
7. Defendant Department of Justice is the agency of the United States government that , under the direction of the Attorney General, has exclusive authority over naturalization of citizens.
8. Defendant Department of Homeland Security is the agency of the United States government that is responsible for implementing the citizenship provisions of the law.
9. Defendant United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“CIS”) is the component of Homeland Security that is responsible to process the applications for citizenship of permanent residents.
JURISDICTION
10. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to INA § 336(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) (jurisdiction for hearing on naturalization in certain cases of delay); 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction); 28 U.S.C. § 2201, the Declaratory Judgment Act; 5 U.S.C. § 701, the Administrative Procedures Act; 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B)(Freedom of Information Act). and 5 U.S.C. § 504, the Equal Access to Justice Act.
VENUE
11. Venue in the [USDC district name] is appropriate pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) because Plaintiff reside within the district and the administrative decisions delaying Plaintiff’ applications for naturalization were issued by the ____ Office of CIS, located within this district. and because the Freedom of Information Act requests were filed on behalf of Plaintiff while residing in this District..
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
12. CLIENT _______________ has been employed by _______________ as a _____since _______________.
13. Plaintiff filed his N-400 naturalization applications with filing fees on _______________ at the _______________. He was fingerprinted by defendants on _______________. He attended interviews on his N-400 applications, on _______________ at the _____ USCIS office. He was told at the interview that he had passed the English language, history and government tests, and that he had met the residence requirements and other eligibility requirements.
14. At the [date ] interview, he was also told that he could not be given final approval and the oath of citizenship until the defendants had completed a “name check. [He was not informed, as required by law, of the option to have this court decide his applications, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1447(b)] (comment—USCIS began including this information after about 2/1/2005 on the notices at interview that the applicant had passed the tests—check to see if he received the notice, and make the allegation if he did not).
15. Plaintiff have met all the eligibility requirements for naturalization. He has met the residence requirements, are of good moral character, are attached to the Constitution, and have passed the English, history and government tests. He has completed the FBI criminal background check; he has no criminal record, [or he does not have any criminal record that bars a finding a good moral character pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1101(f).]
16. Plaintiff inquired of defendants on [list all dates] about the status of his application, and was told that it was still pending. Plaintiff took time off from work on [dates] to check on the status of his applications. After waiting ___hours, he were told that his applications were still pending, the same answer he had been given every time he inquired since the [date] interview. Counsel has also inquired as follows:___.
17. Plaintiff needs approval of his applications because he [need a United States passport to facilitate travel, wish to petition for his aging, ailing parents (or fiancé or siblings, etc), want to apply for a employment with the federal government, want to vote, want to obtain a security clearance to improve his employment options].
18. Since the date of interview, it has been over [number], or ___ months in excess of the 120-day statutory grace period, but USCIS has not made a decision on his application, nor has it informed plaintiff of any deficiency in his applications.
19. By letters dated [date], Plaintiff ted Freedom of Information Act requests to USCIS for “all paper and electronic records.” To date, Defendants have not provided the records requested by Plaintiff, notwithstanding the Freedom of Information Act’s requirement of an agency response within 10 working days. 8 C.F.R. § 103.10(c)(1). Plaintiff have been and will continue to be irreparably harmed because of the unreasonable delay of Defendants in providing the information requested under the Freedom of Information Act..
20. Plaintiff has exhausted all administrative remedies that are available to them. Defendants have willfully and unreasonably delayed and have refused to provide Plaintiff with the information requested under the Freedom of Information Act.
21. The delay in responding to Plaintiff’ Freedom of Information Act request is not attributable to Plaintiff.
24. The delay in responding to Plaintiff’ Freedom of Information Act request is unreasonable in light of the regulatory requirement that a response be made within 10 working days. 8 C.F.R. § 103.10(c)(1).
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:
1. Assume jurisdiction over this matter;
2. If necessary, order that a hearing take place in this matter;
3. Review de novo and grant the naturalization pplications of Plaintiff, and give the Plaintiff his oath of citizenship.
4. Direct Defendants to promptly issue Certificates of Naturalization for Plaintiff.
5. Declare Defendants’ delay in providing the information requested under the Freedom of Information Act to be unlawful;
5. Order Defendants to provide the information requested under the Freedom of Information Act within a reasonable period.
6. Award reasonable costs and attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, and Freedom of Information Act; and
7. Grant any and all further relief this Court deems just and proper.
Dated this ____.
_____________________
Attorney