In immigration matters, the executive branch is accorded great deference, as evidenced by the statutory and regulatory schemes established for processing citizenship applications. Neither the CIS nor the district court is sufficiently informed to decide an application until the FBI completes the required criminal background check to determine whether an applicant presents any national security or public safety risk, nor are they equipped to conduct such investigations themselves. No. 06CV2732-LAB (NLS), 2007 WL 1971944, at *3 (S.D. Cal. June 14, 2007). Remanding the matter with a specific deadline within which the USCIS or FBI must act, as urged by Plaintiffs, is impracticable and short-sited. See Yang v. Chertoff, No. 07CV240 WQH (NLS), 2007 WL 1830908, at *3 (S.D.Cal. June 25, 2007) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Ghazal, 2007 WL 1971944, at *3);
holding that an attorney is a necessary witness for purposes of tennessee rule of professional conduct 37a only if there are things to which he will be the only one available to testify  recognizing  only the fbi and the cis are in a position to know what resources are available to conduct a background check and whether an expedited background check is feasible or efficient in a particular case  holding that views expressed by other courts on the merits and in particular a string of losses together with the actual merits of the governments litigating position are central to issue of whether position was substantially justified recognizing that a damages remedy is not ordinarily available where the alleged agreement is entirely concerned with the conduct of the parties in a criminal case holding that a contract whereby a foreign state grants a private party a license to exploit the states natural resources is not a commercial activity under the fsia since natural resources to the extent they are affected with the public interest are goods in which only the sovereign may deal