Dear Lazycis,
I really appreciate if you can help me to interpret this, thanks.
Joyeia
It appears that some district courts that have adopted Defendants’ reasoning relied in part on the declarations of various government officials outlining the process for reviewing I-485 applications and stating that they are processing the applications as quickly as possible. See, e.g., Israyelyan v. Gonzales at 16, CV 06-8114 SVW (VBKx) 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59035 (C. D. Cal. June 21, 2007); Jiuru Hu v. Chertoff, Case No. CIV S-06-2805 (WBS EFB), 2007, U.S. Dist. Lexis 40489 (E.D. Cal. May 21 2007). In the instant case, Defendants have filed similar declarations, which they believe established that any delay in adjudicating plaintiffs’ I-485 application is not due to any inaction on their part. (McMahon Decl., at 14). Thus, Defendants contend, they have proven the reasonableness of their efforts and, as long as they continue to make such efforts, the pace of their review is discretionary. As addressed by court in Yu’s case: “it is true that courts generally may consider defendants’ extrinsic evidence in evaluating the merits of jurisdictional motions to dismiss. See, e.g. Roberts v. Corrothers, 812 F. 2d 1173, 1177 (9th Cir. 1987). Id. However, courts may not weigh such evidence when issues of jurisdiction and substance are intertwined. Here, the reasonableness of defendants’ delay is both a substantive and jurisdictional question (notably, defendants have styled their motion as a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim). According, it would be inappropriate for this Court to find that Defendants’ declarations necessarily prove that this court lack jusridictionan to hear Plaintiffs’ case.” Yu v. Chertoff, case No. CV 07-00640 DDP (RCx) at 6-7, (C. D. Cal. July 20, 2007).
