United States District Court, N.D. California, Oakland Division
September 19, 2005.
Deep Kumar VOHRA, Petitioner,
David STILL, in his Official Capacity, District Director, United States Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, San Francisco, California; Michael CHERTOFF, in his Official Capacity, Secretary, United States Department of Homeland Security, Respondents.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: SAUNDRA ARMSTRONG, District Judge
STIPULATED MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND
On July 1, 2005, Petitioner filed a Petition for Review
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), Immigration and Nationality Act
("INA") § 336(b), seeking de novo judicial review of his
application for naturalization, requesting that the Court grant
his application for naturalization or, alternatively, order that
a hearing take place in this matter, as Petitioner's application
remained unadjudicated more than 120 days after the date of the
Counsel for Respondents is informed that the United States
Citizenship and Immigration Services ("CIS") is prepared to
adjudicate Petitioner's naturalization application within 30 days
of the dismissal of this action. Pursuant to the Ninth Circuit's
decision in United States v. Hovsepian, 359 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir.
2004), the CIS loses jurisdiction to adjudicate the
naturalization application of an alien who has a petition for de
novo review of that application pending before the District
Court. Hovsepian, 359 F. 3d at 1162-1163; see also Bellajaro
v. Schiltgen, 378 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir. 2004). Accordingly,
the parties hereby request that this Court dismiss the pending
petition to allow the CIS to adjudicate Petitioner's application
for naturalization within 30 days of the dismissal, as
Petitioner's application has been pending for approximately
eighteen months since the date of his naturalization interview.
The parties request the dismissal occur without prejudice to
allow the Petitioner to file a new petition should the CIS again
fail to timely adjudicate the application or should the
application be denied.
Each of the parties shall bear their own costs and fees. ______/s/___________
Assistant United States Attorney
Attorney for Respondents
I declare under penalty of perjury that concurrence in the
filing of this document has been obtained from Edward Olsen.
Dated: September 15, 2005 _______/s/___________
Marc Van Der Hout
Pursuant to stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.