Shuxian Li et al v. Dir LA Asylum Ofc et al

Filing 17

ORDER DISMISSING CASE by Judge Percy Anderson. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The instant action shall be dismissed without prejudice; (See document for further details). (Case Terminated. Made JS-6.) (aco)

Download PDF
JS-6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISON 12 13 SHUXIAN LI, JINGHUI ZHOU, 14 XIAOBING ZHOU, ANDY ZHEN 15 BANG ZHOU LI, 16 17 Plaintiffs, v. 18 DIRECTOR OF THE LOS ANGELES 19 ASYLUM OFFICE ET AL, 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendants. No. 2:23-cv-08548-PA (RAO) ORDER DISMISSING CASE Honorable Percy Anderson United States District Judge 1 2 Having read and considered the Joint Stipulation to Dismiss the Case submitted by the parties, and finding good cause therefor, 3 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The instant action shall be dismissed without prejudice; 5 2. USCIS shall interview Plaintiffs Shuxian Li, Jinghui Zhou, Xiaobing Zhou 6 and Andy Zhen Bang Zhou Li on November 7, 2024, at 10:30 a.m., at the 7 Los Angeles Asylum Office in Tustin, California. USCIS intends to conduct 8 the interview on the date set, however, the parties understand that due to 9 unexpected staffing limitations or other unforeseen circumstances that may 10 arise, USCIS reserves its right to cancel and reschedule the interview. 11 Should rescheduling be necessary, the interview will be rescheduled within 12 four (4) weeks of the original interview date, absent unforeseen or 13 exceptional circumstances; 14 3. unforeseen or exceptional circumstances; 15 16 Plaintiffs agree to attend the interview on the date listed above, absent 4. If needed, Plaintiffs agree to only make one (1) interview reschedule request 17 and to notify the Los Angeles Asylum Office of the reschedule request, in 18 writing, prior to the scheduled interview date. Plaintiffs may email the 19 reschedule request to LosAngelesAsylum@uscis.dhs.gov; 20 5. If multiple reschedule requests are made by Plaintiffs, USCIS may place the 21 asylum application back into the Los Angeles Asylum Office’s general 22 interview scheduling priorities. See 23 https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-and- 24 asylum/asylum/affirmative-asylum-interview-scheduling; 25 6. Plaintiffs understand that additional interview(s) may be required by USCIS 26 as part of the asylum interview process and the adjudication of the 27 application; 28 7. USCIS agrees to diligently work towards completing adjudication of the 1 1 asylum application within 120 days of completion of Plaintiffs’ asylum 2 interview, absent unforeseen or exceptional circumstances that would 3 require additional time to complete adjudication; 4 8. In the event that USCIS does not complete adjudication of the asylum 5 application within 120 days of the completion of the asylum interview, 6 Plaintiffs may refile this action; 7 9. Plaintiffs agree to submit all supplemental documents and evidence, if any, 8 to USCIS prior to the agreed upon scheduled interview based on the 9 following timelines. Plaintiffs may email any supplemental documents to 10 LosAngelesAsylum@uscis.dhs.gov at least seven (7) calendar days before 11 the interview. Alternatively, Plaintiffs may mail the supplemental 12 documents to the Los Angeles Asylum Office, P.O. Box 2003, Tustin, CA 13 92781-2003, postmarked no later than ten (10) calendar days prior to the 14 scheduled asylum interview. Plaintiffs recognize that failure to submit these 15 documents in a timely manner may result in the interview being rescheduled 16 at no fault of USCIS; 17 18 10. Each party agrees to bear it’s the party’s own litigation costs, expenses, and attorney fees. 19 20 Dated: 1RYHPEHU 21 22 23 ____________________________________ ______________________________________ PERCY PER RCY ANDERSON UNITED STATES ST TATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?