Francois v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

1 WO [5] 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA [8] 9 Sabina Carol Francois, No. CV-21-00071-PHX-JAT 10 Petitioner, ORDER 11 v. 12 United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, et al., [13] 14 Respondents. 15 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Case and Lift Stay. (Doc. 16 33). Defendant has responded, (Doc. 34), and Plaintiff has replied, (Doc. 35). The Court 17 now rules. 18 In her motion, Plaintiff requests the Court reopen her naturalization application 19 proceedings in this Court because Plaintiff’s removal proceedings were administratively 20 closed on November 27, 2023. (Doc. 33 at 2). Defendant opposes this motion, arguing that 21 the immigration judge in Plaintiff’s removal proceedings only closed the case 22 administratively because the parties did not have the documents needed to proceed on the 23 merits of Plaintiff’s case. (Doc. 34 at 3). Defendant goes on to state that it received the 24 documents needed to proceed and moved to recalendar removal proceedings. (Id.) 25 Defendant has since informed the Court that removal proceedings have been reopened and 26 are no longer administratively closed. (Doc. 36). 27 The Court has previously explained: Under Ninth Circuit precedent this Court has “jurisdiction pursuant to [28] 1421(c) to review [USCIS’s] denial of [Plaintiff’s] application for 1 naturalization whether or not a removal proceeding is pending, but that 2 review is limited to ‘such’ denial.” Bellajaro, 378 F.3d at 1047. But to decide on the validity of Francois’ application would effectively end her removal 3 proceedings. See, e.g., Omo v. Barrett, No. C 11-04975 CRB, 2012 U.S. Dist. 4 LEXIS 20921 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2012) (declining to proceed with the case because a finding on their part would directly affect the removal 5 proceedings). Such a result is “contrary to congressional intent to end the 6 race between two processes.” Gardener, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32866 , at *15—16. As the Seventh Circuit explained, “[t]he existence of overlapping 7 proceedings does not diminish a district court’s power but does present a g question on which the judge should exercise sound discretion.” Klene v. Napolitano, 697 F.3d 666, 669 (7th Cir. 2012). As a result, the Court finds 9 the prudent course of action is to stay this case pending the outcome of 10 removal proceedings. Adesida, 2021 U.S. Dist. Lexis 79436, at *10. (Doc. 21 at 7). As before, the Court will continue to stay this case pending the outcome of [11] removal proceedings. [12] In light of the foregoing, [13] IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Case and Lift Stay, (Doc. 33), [14] is DENIED without prejudice. [15] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court will STRIKE the [16] Declaration of Bill Ong Hing, (Doc. 37), because it is procedurally improper. [17] Dated this 15th day of March, 2024. [19] 20 : / LY Ye 21 James A. Teilborg 09 Senior United States District Judge [28] _2-