Ok. Now it looks that what I did is in vain: I typed up 25 plus pages of motion in opposition to Government's motion to dismiss, in anticipation of this move by the government. Most of them are copy and paste. Here are my argument of delay of "security checks":
Furthermore, the government’s arguments about security checks as a prerequisite of granting relief because of national security confuse with Petitioner’s claim and are simply logically unfounded as there is no empirical evidence nor logical conclusion to support that claim. First, Petitioner never attempts to ask this Court to grant relief without security checks. On the contrary, it is the Petitioner’s belief that security check is a vital part of adjudication process and should be applied thoroughly and consistently. What at issue is not whether security check should be abolished or waived, but is the Defendant’s mismanagement of security checks causing unreasonable delay of adjudication of Petitioner’s application.
Second, this Court should note that despite the fact that more than 5 years passed since Defendants received Petitioner’s application and Defendants have virtually all the necessary information concerning Petitioner, Defendants have not named a single adverse factor which could legitimately constitute a ground of concern of national security or public safety as a reason of delay. Therefore, Defendants’ resort to national security is unacceptably vague justification of delaying adjudication, See, Santillan v. Gonzalez, No. C04-2686 MHP (N.D. Calif. August 24, 2005) (“defendants’ [national security] concerns are illogical and unacceptably vague as a legal justification for withholding documents”…as defendants are “unable or unwilling to identify a single [lawful permanent resident] who has been identified as a possible national security threat, much less one who has been detained or deported as a result of security concerns”).
Third, no logical conclusion could ever be made that the delay of completion of security check furthers national security. The plain fact is that aliens are set free with the pending AOS applications. The longer the security check takes, the more time and preparation it buys for terrorists to plot attacks against United States. As Department of Homeland Security (DHS) itself admitted, “[t]hese (security check) delays can interfere with USCIS’ concluding national security and public safety hits with timely denials or referrals to law enforcement.” A Review of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ Alien Security Checks, OIG-06-06 Office of Inspections and Special Reviews of DHS (November 2005). On a legal level, this Court should recognize that Petitioner has legal rights that the government can not simply disregard by waving the national security flag. Petitioner believes that the factual records to be uncovered by discovery, if granted by this Court, will confirm that the real problem is bureaucratic ineptitude and inefficiency that results in Petitioner's rights being violated.
Fourth, it is far from clear that Defendants’ security checks are useful in detecting potential threats to national security. By Defendants’ own admission in Santillan, the procedures challenged in this complaint would not have caught a single September 11 hijacker.
Administrative agencies such as USCIS must explain and justify their actions in order to permit meaningful checks on executive power. “Expert discretion is the lifeblood of the administrative process, but unless we make the requirements for administrative action strict and demanding, expertise, the strength of modern government, can become a monster which rules with no practical limits on its discretion.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n, 463 U.S. at 48 (quoting New York v. United States, 342 U.S. 882, 884). It is “obvious and unarguable” that national security is of paramount importance, see Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500, 509 (1964), and it is equally obvious that the government agencies entrusted with preserving that security should take great pains to make rational use of their limited resources. Defendants’ repeated and conclusory appeals to national security concerns simply do not withstand careful scrutiny.
