22.  Typically, U.S. Armed Forces enlistees must meet U.S. citizenship or permanent  residence requirements.  10 U.S.C. § 504(b).  However, 10 U.S.C. § 504(b)(2) authorizes the  Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of the military service departments to enlist certain  non-U.S. citizens and non-permanent residents if enlistment of such individuals is “vital to the  national interest.”  Under this authority, DoD initiated the MAVNI program in 2008 and the  program has continued to operate through the present, with brief interruptions and enlistment  suspension periods.   23.  The MAVNI program is designed to attract two types of recruits into the military:  (a) health care professionals and (b) individuals who possess critical foreign language skills.   DoD officials acknowledge that soldiers with these skills “are necessary to sustain effective  military operations.”     24.  Under MAVNI, DoD encouraged qualified individuals to enlist, touting the  opportunity of an “expedited” path to U.S. citizenship.  DoD contractually mandated that  MAVNI enlistees – including Plaintiffs – apply for citizenship “as soon as the [service branch  (e.g., the Army)] has certified [the MAVNI soldier’s] honorable service.”  This citizenship  opportunity was a powerful enticement to Plaintiffs and other such qualified individuals who  contemplated MAVNI enlistment.   26.  The commitment that each Plaintiff has undertaken to serve as a soldier in the  U.S. Army Reserve is serious and substantial.  As the standard MAVNI Army Reserve  enlistment contract states, an agreement to enlist “is more than an employment agreement.  It  effects a change in status from civilian to military member of the Armed Forces.”  As such, per  the Enlistment/Reenlistment Document Armed Forces of the United States (DD Form 4/1),  soldiers (a) are “[r]equired to obey all lawful orders and perform all assigned duties,” (b) are  “[s]ubject to the military justice system” and, among other things, “may be tried by military  courts-martial,” (c) may be “[r]equired upon order to serve in combat or other hazardous  situations,” and (d) must otherwise “meet acceptable military standards” such that any failure to  meet their service obligations as Selected Reservists can result in demotion and/or discharge  from the service under other than honorable conditions.   28.  As a member of the Selected Reserve, each soldier “may at any time, and without  [his/her] consent, be ordered to active duty to complete a total of 24 months of active duty.”  In  times of war or national emergency declared by Congress, these soldiers may, without their  consent, “be ordered to serve on active duty for the entire period of the war or emergency and for  six (6) months after its end.”  As members of the Selected Reserve, these soldiers may, without  their consent, be ordered to 365 days of consecutive active duty whenever “the President  determines that it is necessary to augment the active forces for any operational mission or for  certain emergencies.”  The Applicable Statutory and Regulatory Framework   30.  The key language here is that certain non-U.S. citizens qualify for naturalization  under this section with honorable service “as a member of the Selected Reserve of the Ready  Reserve or in an active-duty status.”  8 U.S.C. § 1440(a) (emphasis added).  This disjunctive  language of the statute is clear and unequivocal: honorable service in the Selected Reserve is an  independent basis for naturalization.  Stated differently, naturalization under this statute is not  dependent on an individual performing active-duty service.   31.  The history of the statute reinforces the separate and independent import of these  two clauses.  While the prior version of the statute limited naturalization to those serving in an  active-duty status, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, Pub. L. No.  108-136, 117 Stat. 1392, 1693 (2003) amended the statute to add those serving as members of  the Selected Reserve.  Thus, Congress made clear that naturalization is available based on either  service as a member of the Selected Reserve or service in active-duty status.    33.  The regulations implementing 8 U.S.C. § 1440 are located at 8 C.F.R. Part 329,  entitled “SPECIAL CLASSES OF PERSONS WHO MAY BE NATURALIZED: PERSONS  73.  The named Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of  Civil Procedure on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated.  The named  Plaintiffs seek to represent the below-described Class:   75.  The members of Plaintiffs’ Class warrant class action treatment because they  fulfill the certifying requirements under Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.   While the exact number of Class members is unknown to Plaintiffs at this time, recent DoD  memoranda – including a May 19, 2017 “Action Memo” signed by DoD Under Secretaries, a  July 27, 2017 memorandum from the Acting Secretary of the Army, and sworn statements by  DoD representatives in the Nio Action – indicate that the proposed Class would consist of  approximately 2,000 members.     76.  The proposed Class meets the numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a)(1) because  the members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical.   77.  The proposed Class meets the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2) because  there are questions of law and fact common to the Class, including, for example, whether DoD  has a mandatory duty to complete N-426 Forms and whether DoD’s “active-duty service”  requirement for certification of a Form N-426 is contrary to law.   78.  The proposed Class meets the typicality requirement of Rule 23(a)(3) because the  claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of each of the Class members.  Class  members and Plaintiffs similarly are affected by Defendants’ wrongful conduct in violation of  federal law, including 8 U.S.C. § 1440, that is described herein.   80.  Furthermore, as contemplated by Rule 23(b)(1), if the individual members of the  Class were to bring separate suits to address Defendants’ policies, practices, and actions and  inactions, Defendants may address the cases of the named Plaintiffs but ignore the concerns of  the remaining Class members, thereby exacerbating Defendants’ violations of the law.   Resolving this matter as a class action also would serve the Court’s interest in judicial economy  by avoiding overburdening the courts with individual lawsuits brought by each of the many  enlistees recruited through the MAVNI program whose Form N-426 honorable service  certifications are being withheld subject to DoD’s unlawful active-duty service requirement.   81.  Alternatively, this case qualifies for class action treatment under Rule 23(b)(2)  because Plaintiffs seek final injunctive and declaratory relief.  This relief is appropriate for the  whole Class as Defendants’ actions and/or refusals to act apply generally to the Class as a whole.  The MAVNI Program and Plaintiffs’ Service Commitments  