Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Mohammad Farshchin sued Pamela Bondi and other federal defendants in the Northern District of California in a naturalization case under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), where the district court reviews the application de novo. Defendants' Certified Administrative Record (CAR) omitted Department of State (DOS) records on his visa application. Plaintiff sought his Form DS-160 and the NIV Applicant Detail, including consular case notes and Consular Consolidated Database (CCD) entries. Defense counsel wrote in July 2026 that USCIS was working with DOS to assemble them, but Defendants later said USCIS need not include DOS records in the CAR. The parties filed a joint discovery letter after extended meet-and-confer efforts.
Plaintiff argued that Rule 26(b)(1) governs discovery in a de novo proceeding and that, even under the record rule, the CAR shows the USCIS officer checked the CCD, including his nonimmigrant visa record, and relied on it in an eligibility assessment recommending denial. Defendants did not contest relevance, proportionality, or possession, custody, or control. They argued only that Plaintiff served no Rule 34 request and, alternatively, that he had not shown the records were considered. As Plaintiff framed it, the key merits issue is whether his mandatory Iranian military service justifies denying naturalization.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that discovery in a Section 1447(b) case is governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, not the APA record-review standards. It found persuasive Gonzalez v. Napolitano, a district court decision on Section 1421(c) review that relied on Rule 81(a)(3), the rarity of de novo review of agency action, and the point that de novo review cannot work if the court is confined to the record below. The court also cited Hovsepian for the principle that the district court does not defer to the agency's findings. Limiting discovery to materials the agency considered, with a presumption of regularity for the certified record, is inconsistent with that standard. The court noted that case law on this question is scant.
Applying Rule 26(b)(1), the court found the records relevant and proportional, and treated Defendants' silence on that point in the joint letter as a waiver. The records bear on how Plaintiff's military service was disclosed and assessed when he sought admission, and that admission is the statutory predicate for the adjustment of status Defendants now question. Defendants did not claim burden or lack of control. The court also held that, on these facts, the absence of a formal Rule 34 request did not bar relief: Plaintiff asked months earlier, Defendants initially appeared to agree and never raised the objection during meet-and-confer, and they understood what was sought. Defendants must produce an amended CAR containing the DS-160 and the NIV Applicant Detail with related consular notes and CCD entries within seven days, per the parties' stipulation.
Key Takeaways
- Discovery in a de novo naturalization action under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) follows the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure rather than APA record-review limits.
- The court found a presumption of regularity for the certified administrative record inconsistent with de novo review.
- Not responding to a relevance and proportionality argument in a joint discovery letter led the court to find those objections waived.
- The Rule 34 ruling is fact-specific; the court cautioned that treating correspondence between counsel as formal requests could create confusion in discovery.
- This is a discovery order only and does not decide whether Plaintiff's military service bars naturalization.
Why It Matters
This is a magistrate judge's discovery order in a pending case, not a published appellate decision, so it is persuasive at most. Its value is that it addresses a question the court said has little case law: whether record-rule limits carry over to discovery in a Section 1447(b) action. Applicants and the government in similar cases can expect arguments that the full scope of Rule 26 applies.
The relief is narrow: production of specified DOS records in an amended CAR within seven days. The court did not rule on the merits, on whether USCIS actually considered the records, or on what weight they deserve. Those questions, and the underlying naturalization dispute, remain open.