KHAN v. FRAZIER

6 Citing cases

  1. Dolgosheev v. U.S. Citizenship Immigration Services

    Civil Action No. 07-1019 (W.D. Pa. Jul. 25, 2008)   Cited 1 times

    8 U.S.C. § 1446(d). If the application is granted, the applicant participates in a citizenship oath ceremony. 8 U.S.C. § 1448(a); Khan v. Frazier, Civil No. 06-1560 (MJD/RLE), 2007 WL 270413, at *3 (D.Minn. Jan. 29, 2007).Ahmed v. Muellar, No. 07-0411, 2007 WL 2726250, at * 2 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 14, 2007).

  2. Liu v. Chertoff

    538 F. Supp. 2d 1116 (D. Minn. 2008)   Cited 11 times
    Explaining that "[p]ro se litigants are not entitled to EAJA fee awards" and that such awards otherwise require a party to have prevailed in the litigation, meaning that it secured a "judicially sanctioned change in the legal relationship of the parties"

    However, the Court also notes that Defendants' litigation position was not substantially justified. Defendants ignored their clear statutory duty to render a decision within 120 days after the date of the examination and an expanding body of case law recognizing the USCIS's duty to adjudicate applications within a reasonable period of time, including this Court's order in Khan v. Frazier, Civil No. 06-1560, 2007 WL 270413 (MJD/RLE) (D.Minn. Jan. 29, 2007), remanding a similar case to the USCIS with a time limit. Instead, Defendants continued to insist that the Court was required to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction or, alternatively, that the Court should place no time limit on the USCIS to adjudicate Liu's application.

  3. Mighri v. Gonzales

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-03624 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 19, 2007)   Cited 2 times

    8 U.S.C. § 1446(d). If the application is granted, the applicant participates in a citizenship oath ceremony. 8 U.S.C. § 1448(a); Khan v. Frazier, Civil No. 06-1560 (MJD/RLE), 2007 WL 270413, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 29, 2007). D. Request for Court Order Directing Federal Agencies to Complete FBI Background Check and Adjudicate Plaintiff's Naturalization Application or Schedule Interview on Naturalization Application.

  4. Karar v. Frazier

    Civil No. 07-1853 (DWF/AJB) (D. Minn. Oct. 12, 2007)   Cited 1 times

    "At some point, USCIS's delay becomes unreasonable." Khan v. Frazier, No. 06-1560 (MJD/RLE), 2007 WL 270413, at *4 (D. Minn. Jan. 29, 2007). Here, the Court finds it unreasonable for the Plaintiff to have to wait for his adjudication for more than three years, especially in light of the fact that neither the USCIS nor the FBI have given her a specific reason for the delay.

  5. Farbakhsh v. Uscis

    Civil File No. 07-1714 (MJD/SRN) (D. Minn. Oct. 1, 2007)   Cited 1 times

    The Court acknowledges that USCIS's burden has significantly increased and that USCIS cannot give an applicant's background check priority over those requested by other agencies. See Khan v. Frazier, Civil No. 06-1560 (MJD/RLE), 2007 WL 270413, at *4 (D. Minn. Jan. 29, 2007) (unpublished) (discussing USCIS's increased workload). However, USCIS still has "a non-discretionary duty to process the application within a reasonable time."

  6. Shchepilova v. Gonzales

    Civil No. 07-2018 (DWF/AJB) (D. Minn. Sep. 27, 2007)

    "At some point, USCIS's delay becomes unreasonable." Khan v. Frazier, No. 06-1560 (MJD/RLE), 2007 WL 270413, at *4 (D. Minn. Jan. 29, 2007). Here, the Court finds it unreasonable for the Plaintiff to have to wait for her adjudication for more than two years, especially in light of the fact that neither the USCIS nor the FBI have given her a specific reason for the delay.