Background
Navid Safavi filed suit under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) in October 2025 to compel federal immigration officials to adjudicate his naturalization application, which had been pending more than 120 days after his January 2024 interview. The statute lets a district court either decide the naturalization matter itself or remand it to USCIS with appropriate instructions. On September 2, 2026, the court remanded the case and ordered USCIS to determine the application within thirty days.
The remand order imposed specific conditions: if USCIS denied the application for the reasons stated in its Notice of Intent to Deny, it had to explain in writing why the alleged nondisclosure of military service was material, what weight it gave Safavi's explanation that the omission was an oversight rather than purposeful evasion, and how the denial affected his lawful permanent resident status. USCIS issued a Notice of Denial on October 1, 2026. Defendants then moved to dismiss the case as moot, while Safavi argued USCIS had not genuinely complied and asked the court to vacate the denial and decide the application itself.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott granted the defendants' request and dismissed the case as moot. The court noted that Section 1447(b) is relatively silent on when a court may reassert jurisdiction after remanding with instructions, but held that a court cannot lose jurisdiction to enforce its own instructions, since that reading would render the statute meaningless. Yet Ninth Circuit district courts tend not to vacate a remand when a plaintiff challenges only the merits, so long as the agency followed the instructions.
Examining each instruction, the court found USCIS had complied. On materiality, the Notice of Denial explained that Safavi's misrepresentations about his Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps service on his permanent residence application shut off a relevant line of inquiry that may have made his admission less likely, even though the court noted Safavi raised strong counterpoints. On weight, the NOD gave little weight to his claim that the question 'reads scary' because it did not account for his other negative answers and conflicted with his student visa disclosures. On permanent resident status, USCIS stated the denial did not terminate that status and that he could continue to live and work in the United States — a representation the court relied on heavily while calling it perplexing that USCIS could deem him unlawfully admitted yet still a lawful permanent resident.
Because USCIS followed the remand instructions, the court could not reassert jurisdiction over the merits even if it disagreed with the outcome. Safavi may still petition for de novo review of the denial under 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) after exhausting his administrative remedies.
Key Takeaways
- A district court retains jurisdiction to enforce its remand instructions under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), but once USCIS complies, the court cannot vacate the agency's decision merely because it disagrees with the merits.
- USCIS satisfied the materiality instruction by explaining that the nondisclosure of Iranian military service shut off a relevant line of inquiry into other potential grounds of inadmissibility.
- The court found it perplexing that USCIS denied naturalization for unlawful admission as a permanent resident while maintaining that status remains intact, but treated that tension as a merits issue outside its jurisdiction.
- The dismissal as moot rested heavily on USCIS's representation that the applicant's lawful permanent resident status is not terminated and that he may continue to live and work in the United States.
- The applicant preserves the right to seek de novo judicial review of the denial under 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) after exhausting administrative remedies.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the limited role district courts play after remanding a naturalization application under Section 1447(b). Even when a court doubts the agency's reasoning, it will not reassert jurisdiction so long as the agency formally complied with the remand instructions. Challenges to the substance of a denial must instead proceed through administrative review and a separate petition for de novo review under Section 1421(c).
The case also flags an unresolved tension: denying naturalization because the applicant was never lawfully admitted for permanent residence while insisting he remains a lawful permanent resident. That contradiction may ground future challenges in administrative and judicial review of the denial.
Read the full opinion (PDF) · Court docket