govinfo:USCOURTS-kyed-5_25-cv-00197-0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY 
CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON 
 
LIANHUI QI,  
Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 5: 25-197-KKC 
v.  
KRISTI NOEM, et al., MEMORANDUM OPINION 
AND ORDER 
Defendants.  
***   ***   ***   *** 
 Lianhui Qi filed this action seeking mandamus relief to compel immigration officials to 
adjudicate her applicat ion for naturalization.  See [R. 1.]  Before the respondents filed their 
response, a criminal case agains t Qi was unsealed on March 31, 2026.  See United States v. Qi , 
No. 5:26-CR-6-KKC-MAS-1 (E.D. Ky. 2026), [R. 11, 12 therein].  Thereafter the respondents 
filed a status report regarding the criminal case in which they requested that the Court “remand 
this case back to [United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”)] with appropriate 
instructions for the Service to determine the matter” pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b).  See [R. 16].  
The Court directed that the motion and Qi’s petition be sent to her counsel of record in the criminal 
case, and ordered Qi to file a response either pro se or through counsel.  See [R. 17].  The deadline 
to respond has passed without response from Qi. 
 The governing statute provides that: 
If there is a failure to make  a determination under section 1446 of this title before 
the end of the 120-day period after the date on which the examination is conducted 
under such section, the appli cant may apply to the United States district court for 
the district in which the applicant reside s for a hearing on the matter. Such court 
has jurisdiction over the matter and may either determine the matter or remand the 
matter, with appropriate instructions, to the Service to determine the matter. 
 
Case: 5:25-cv-00197-KKC     Doc #: 20     Filed: 06/03/26     Page: 1 of 3 - Page ID#:
<pageID>
2 
 
8 U.S.C. § 1447(b).  The statute thus affords the district court discretion to either decide the 
application or remand it to USCIS to consider it in the first instance.  Cf. Yan Wu v. Rodriguez , 
142 F. Supp. 3d 594, 596 (S.D. Ohio 2015).  That said,  
Nearly all courts, however, that “have cons idered this question[,] remand the case 
to USCIS.”  Id.  As the Southern District of Ohio has explained, “[a] district court 
is ill-suited to decid[e] a naturalization petition; it doe s not have the resources or 
experience to properly evaluate the multitude  of individual fact ors that must be 
considered.”  Musaad v. Mueller , 627 F. Supp. 2d 804, 809 (S.D. Ohio 2007).  
Rather, when the law entrusts a governme ntal agency to make certain decisions, 
“the proper course, except in rare circum stances, is to remand to the agency for 
additional investigation or explanation.”  I.N.S. v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16 (2002) 
(quoting Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729, 744 (1985)) (noting that 
the policy favoring remand to executive ag encies “has obvious importance in the 
immigration context”). 
 
Abdallah v. Garland, No. 1:22:CV-00333, 2022 WL 3597881, at *3 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 23, 2022).  
See also Khelifa v. Chertoff , 433 F. Supp. 2d 836, 842 (E.D. Mic h. 2006) (in action challenging 
delay by USCIS in adjudicating naturalization application, the court remanded to USCIS pursuant 
to § 1447(b) noting that “… the weight of authority … uniformly supports Defendants’ contention 
that [USCIS] generally should be given the opportunity to decide applications for naturalization in 
the first instance.”).
1  The Court concurs that USCIS should be afforded the fi rst opportunity to 
decide the matter and concludes that remand is warranted here. 
 Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows: 
 1. The Defendants’ Motion for Remand [R. 16] is GRANTED. 
 2. The Court’s stay of this matter is LIFTED. 
 3. This matter is REMANDED to USCIS pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) to resolve 
Qi’s Application for Naturalization within sixty (60) days. 
 
1  The respondents do not indicate that any removal proceedings are presently pending, so the prohibition 
of 8 U.S.C. § 1429 does not apply.  See Ebu v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigr. Servs. , 134 F.4th 895, 900-02 
(6th Cir. 2025), cert. denied sub nom. Ebu v. USCIS, 223 L. Ed. 2d 509 (Jan. 12, 2026). 
Case: 5:25-cv-00197-KKC     Doc #: 20     Filed: 06/03/26     Page: 2 of 3 - Page ID#:
<pageID>
3 
 
 4. The Defendants shall ensu re that a copy of this Or der is transm itted to the 
appropriate office of USCIS. 
 5. This matter is STRICKEN from the docket. 
 Entered:  June 3, 2026. 
 
 
 
Case: 5:25-cv-00197-KKC     Doc #: 20     Filed: 06/03/26     Page: 3 of 3 - Page ID#:
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight