Last week, the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia made its ruling in the case of Iqbal v. Gonzales, et al. In which the plaintiff, a applicant for U.S. citizenship brought action against then-acting Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).  The court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss, and remanded the plaintiff’s action back to the CIS.  

The Plaintiff, Javaid Iqbal, is a resident alien who applied in November 2004 to become a U.S. citizen.  CIS interviewed him in January 2006, but was unable to make a ruling on his citizenship status because the FBI had not completed the statutorily mandated background check.  After waiting almost one year for response from CIS regarding their decision, Iqbal filed a claim pursuant to 8 USC § 1447(b):  

"If there is a failure to make a determination 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…to either determine the matter or remand the matter."  

Shortly after Iqbal filed suit, the FBI completed its background check.  Even with action pending, CIS continued to process Iqbal’s application.  On April 12, 2007, CIS denied citizenship on grounds that the FBI background check alleged that Iqbal had illegally smuggled aliens in the United States .  

Defendants contend that the Court in which Iqbal brought suit had insufficient subject matter jurisdiction over this claim because the statute regarding the 120-day period specified in the claim had not yet expired at the time of filing.  The defendants further assert that CIS’s denial of Iqbal’s citizenship, which occurred during pendency of this action, had rendered to lawsuit moot.  

Regarding the defendants’ motion to dismiss based on failure to wait 120 days, this Court first looks to determine what event – the applicant interview or completion of the FBI background check – triggered the start of the 120-period.  If the period starts on the date of the initial interview, as Iqbal claims, then this Court has jurisdiction.  However, if the CIS examination does not conclude until the background check is completed, the Court must dismiss Iqbal’s case.  This Court states that an overwhelming majority of district courts have previously held that the initial applicant interview constitutes the "examination" for purposes of § 1447(b), the statute in which plaintiff based his claim.  Singled out was the analysis in Manzoor v. Chertoff, in which that Court concluded that the "plain language of the statute indicates that the term ‘examination’ refers to the initial interview."  Based on this, coupled with the fact that Iqbal filed this action on December 20, 2006, almost a year after his January 3, 2006 interview, this Court holds that there was sufficient subject matter jurisdiction.  

On defendants motion to dismiss based on mootness, this court cites Etape v. Chertoff (4^th Cir. Aug. 2, 2007), where the US Appeals Court for the 4^th Circuit held that "a proper § 1447(b) petition vests the district court with exclusive jurisdiction."  Since the Court had established that Iqbal’s timely filing could clearly be considered ‘proper,’ then CIS’s subsequent denial of Iqbal’s citizenship application has no effect.   

On remand, this Court provides specific instructions, keeping within the boundaries of 8 USC § 1447(b).  Since the plaintiff’s petition concerns the timeliness of, and not the content behind, CIS’s administrative actions, this Court declines to strip CIS of its administrative powers.  Further, the Court assumes that the completed FBI check will allow CIS to allow full development of record of Iqbal’s citizenship status, which as of the claim, lacked the necessary information to fully view the information as a whole.