UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
July 21, 2008
GURMEET SINGH, PLAINTIFF,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; MICHAEL CHERTOFF, SECRETARY, U.S. CASE MANAGEMENT; DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; EMILIO T. GONZALEZ, DIRECTOR, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; DAVID N. STILL, DISTRICT DIRECTOR, USCIS SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT OFFICE; F. GERARD HEINAUER, DIRECTOR, USCIS NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Joseph C. Spero United States Magistrate Judge
STIPULATION TO EXTEND DATE OF CONFERENCE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
The plaintiff, by and through his attorney of record, and defendants, by and through their attorneys of record, hereby jointly ask this Court to once again extend the date of the case management conference, currently scheduled for July 25, 2008, by approximately 30 days in light of the following:
1. The plaintiff is a native and citizen of India who entered the United States on September 11, 1998, as a visitor for business.
2. On March 22, 1999, the plaintiff filed a Form I-589 application for asylum with USCIS, and an Immigration Judge in San Francisco granted that application.
3. After receiving his grant of asylum by the Immigration Judge, the plaintiff filed an I-485 application with USCIS, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1159, to adjust his status to lawful permanent resident (commonly referred to as a "green card" holder) on February 13, 2004.
4. In addition, on April 4, 2003, the plaintiff filed Form I-730 petitions at the Nebraska Service Center on behalf of his spouse, step-son, and so, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3) (stating that an alien granted asylum may file a petition seeking to confer derivative asylum status upon a spouse or child under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3)).
5. The USCIS denied the plaintiff's I-485 application on March 9, 2007, for two reasons. First, the USCIS found that the plaintiff had not fulfilled the statutory requirements for eligibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1159(b), because he had provided material support to members of the Khalistan Liberation Force. Second, the USCIS denied the plaintiff's I-485 application in the exercise of its discretion.
6. The USCIS denied the plaintiff's I-730 petitions in the exercise of discretion on March 9, 2007, and April 11, 2007, based on the agency's finding that because plaintiff had been denied adjustment of status, and he is wanted on an arrest warrant involving unresolved allegations of violent crimes, it would not be in the best interests of the United States to permit plaintiff to create additional ties to the United States by bringing his derivative spouse and children here.
7. The plaintiff filed an action in this Court on April 23, 2007, seeking review of the decisions by USCIS to deny his Form I-485 application for adjustment of status and the Form I-730 petitions that the plaintiff filed on behalf of his wife, step-son, and son.
8. Pursuant to a stipulation signed by this Court on October 3, 2007, the parties agreed to file cross-motions for summary judgment by November 12, 2007; to file cross-oppositions by November 26, 2007; to file cross-replies by December 3, 2007; and to participate in a hearing on February 15, 2008.
9. On November 13, 2007, the parties filed a stipulation, pursuant to which USCIS agreed to sua sponte reopen the I-485 and I-730 proceedings to address whether, pursuant to 72 Fed. Reg. 9958-01 (March 6, 2007), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI) applies to the support the plaintiff provided, allegedly under duress, to a terrorist organization as described in 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi)(III). This court signed the parties stipulation and the case was held in abeyance.
10. The USCIS has re-opened the I-485 and I-730 proceedings and the plaintiff has submitted materials and legal argument in support of his application for adjustment of status (Form I-485 application) and asylee petitions (I-730 petitions).
11. Although USCIS expected to issue a decision within 60 days of receipt of the plaintiff's materials and legal argument, USCIS has not been able to do so.
12. On June 2, 2008, this Court granted the parties' stipulation to extend the date of the case management conference, then scheduled for June 6, 2008, to July 25, 2008, on the ground that USCIS was committed to issuing a decision within 30 days.
13. Because USCIS is still considering whether to approve or deny the I-485 and/or I-730 petitions, the parties ask this Court to once again extend the case management conference, this time until August 22, 2008, at 1:30 p.m.
14. The parties recognize that they have filed multiple stipulations to extend in this case and appreciate the Court's patience in this matter.
Accordingly, the parties jointly ask this Court to vacate the case management conference, currently scheduled for July 25, 2008, and to re-schedule a case management conference for August 22, 2008.
Dated: July 18, 2008 Respectfully submitted,
OSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO United States Attorney
EDWARD A. OLSEN Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for Defendants
Dated: July 18, 2008
ROBERT B. JOBE Law Offices of Robert B. Jobe Attorney for Plaintiff
Pursuant to stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.