[paragraph] 7 Indeed, the USCIS chose to commit additional resources to the NNCP, allowing the FBI to increase its personnel; "[m]ost of the improvements in name check processing times and the reductions in the backlogs have resulted from this increase in resources and personnel." (15) The BCS, which was already overdue when it was described in the 2007 report, had not been implemented by the publication of the 2008 report, and was not mentioned in the 2009 report.
[paragraph] 8 Besides illustrating the shortcomings of employing the FBI's NNCP in the naturalization process, an analysis of Aronov and its case history reveals that the USCIS was not substantially justified in its tardiness in processing a naturalization application pending an FBI name check.
(25) It rejected the argument that the delay was justified by a backlog in the FBI's NNCP, explaining that the delay itself, regardless of the agency responsible, "renders the government's pre-litigation position not 'substantially justified.'" (26)
(30) The USCIS offered no "particularized justification" for noncompliance, giving only policy justifications for the FBI NNCP. (31) Finally, the court noted that although the USCIS attributed the delay to the FBI name-check backlog, the failure was caused by the agency's premature and unexplained examination of Mr.
[paragraph] 13 The dissent countered that the government was substantially justified because the USCIS's use of the FBI NNCP as part of its criminal background check "was a reasonable interpretation of a legislative command and that interpretation was committed to the agency's expertise." (33) Furthermore, it argued that the relevant statute did not mandate adjudication within 120 days of Mr.
(38) Such was the case, the court reasoned, with the USCIS's decision to include the NNCP as part of the required full criminal background check.
Aronov's premature interview was not an isolated error, but rather part of the USCIS's "regular practice [of violating] its own regulations by examining candidates before receiving NNCP results" and inviting lawsuits by missing the subsequent deadline.
1446(a) or the 1998 Appropriations Act that requires USCIS to include the NNCP in the naturalization process." (52) In fact, even though the NNCP had already existed for decades when the relevant statutes were enacted, Congress made no provision for it in the 1998 appropriations bill calling for a "full criminal background check" by the FBI.
[paragraph] 21 The government's response to the NNCP backlog was focused not on updating the FBI's tools, but rather on providing enough resources to secure additional staff.
The Ombudsman has recommended that USCIS not participate in NNCP because of the costs and inconveniences caused by processing delays.
(141) For immigration benefit applications, USCIS submits names to the FBI for checks against the National Name Check Program (NNCP) for the following benefits: asylum, adjustment of status to legal permanent resident, naturalization, and waivers.