Whether the district court has exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction in naturalization cases filed under 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) after USCIS issues a final N-400 application denial

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the district court has exclusive jurisdiction in cases filed pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) (understandable from Ninth Circuit opinion) or concurrent jurisdiction with USCIS (Second Circuit opinion) after USCIS issues the final denial of N-400 application. 2. Whether the cases filed pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) divest the federal court to remand the naturalization petition to the agency to decide it after its final denial. (understandable from Ninth Circuit opinion, contradicts Second Circuit) 3. Whether the later agency’s approval for naturalization petition after its intentional illegal final denial of the Naturalization petition in the cases filed pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) is void, null and invalid. 4. Ifthe agency’s approval of a naturalization petition after it's intentional unwarranted final denial is void, null and invalid in cases filed pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) and in the case of petitioner received his certificate of citizenship, Whether the trial court should issue summary judgment sua sponte to approve the naturalization petition, and order USCIS to issue the naturalization certificate nun pro tunc in the date the petitioner took the naturalization Oath. 5. Whether the naturalization certificate should be issued nunc pro tunc on the date of the naturalization petition’s approval in the cases filed pursuant to 1421(c) if the agency changed the date of the first intentional unwarranted denial to be a date of the naturalization petition’s approval. 6. Whether the petitioner's intention to run for Congress is enough reason for the court to i ’ q grant Saleh’s sought an order to USCIS to issue his naturalization certificate nunc pro tunc, or backdating, after USCIS admitted its mistake when USCIS changed its previous intentional illegal denial to approval backdating 8\31\20 or issue the certificate of citizenship backdating 6 months from the date of his applying for naturalization on 5\18\2018. 7. When the USCIS is committing intentional illegal denial of naturalization petition because of the Illegal policy (CARRP) and admitting that by changing the denial date to be an approval date, whether issuing a backdating certificate of citizenship should be an available remedy as an equitable remedy. 8. If the USCIS naturalization petition's Approval is void after filing a case pursuant to 1421(c), because of no jurisdiction , whether the naturalization petition before the trial court should not be dismissed for mootness. 9. If the CARRP is illegal and unconstitutional, and the CARRP disclosed that a USCIS’s officer may delay then deny any petition of any relative (wife, sibling) to any person on the security watching list and subjected to CARRP. Whether his seeking injunctive and declaratory relief to enjoin CARRP is considered as a fact or as speculative. 10. When the USCIS is committing intentional illegal denial of naturalization petition because of the Illegal policy (CARRP) and agency admitting that by changing the denial date to be an approval date, Whether the apology should be an available remedy if no other remedy is available to make good, the wrong done. 11. The US Supreme Court in Bivens explained that “where legal rights have been invaded .. y Fl . . federal courts may use any available remedy to make good the wrong done.” Which remedy is available, the federal courts may use to make good the wrong done if the legal rights of naturalization’s petitioner or seeker permanent residence have been invaded . intentionally because of CARRP, and his green card or his naturalization or both was delayed for many years, then denied, if no any remedy is available, neither monetary damages, nor backdated, nor apology. 12. Whether BIVENS or monetary damages should be an available remedy if USCIS made an intentional unwarranted denial because of CARRP, by delaying the interview then denying N-400 then 3 years later changing the denial date to approval date before the trial. 13. Wheth