was to prevent the agency from “sitting on” applications ripe for review, whereas here, the application is not ripe for review because it is missing an essential element that is outside the agency’s control. Defendants urge the Court to adopt the reasoning set forth in Walji v. Gonzales, 2007 WL 1747911 (5th Cir.2007) Walji I). In Walji I, the Fifth Circuit held that “when the CIS examination is premature because the mandatory security investigation is not complete, the 120-day time period of [ ] § 1447(b) does not begin to run....” 2007 WL 1747911, 2007 U.S.App. LEXIS 14450, at *8. However, after Defendants filed their motion, the Fifth Circuit granted Walji’s petition for reheating and reversed its previous opinion. See Walji v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 432, 433 (5th Cir.2007) (Walji II) (<HOLDING>). Even before Walji I was reversed, Defendants
holding that the statute of limitations period begins to run when the allegedly discriminatory pension plan is applied to the plaintiffs and leaving determination of the actual date the statute begins to run on each claim to the district court holding that limitation period begins to run at the time of the breach holding that the limitations period begins to run at the time that the parties first enter into the franchise agreement holding that the 120day time period begins to run after the agencys initial interview of the applicant holding that the 120day period commences when the applicant appears in person for the interview