Nansy Wagih Beniamin Makar v. Ur Jaddou et al

Filing 12

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE by Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr.: On 1/7/2025, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation to stay the case until 12/31/2025, based on the parties' agreement that USCIS will interview Plaintiff on 8/19/2025 11 . I t appears that the more efficient approach is to dismiss this action without prejudice to either party moving to reopen nunc pro tunc in the event that further Court intervention becomes necessary. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that this action is DISMI SSED without prejudice to any party seeking to vacate this order and reopen the action nunc pro tunc in the event that Plaintiff is unable to receive a determination in the time contemplated by the parties. (SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS.) ( Case Terminated. Made JS-6. ) (gk)

JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NANSY WAGIH BENIAMIN
MAKAR,

Case No. 2:24-cv-10041-SB-MAR

Plaintiff,

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
WITHOUT PREJUDICE

v.
UR JADDOU et al.,
Defendants.

Plaintiff Nansy Wagih Beniamin Makar filed an I-589 asylum application in
November 2019. After waiting more than five years without receiving a decision,
she filed this mandamus action seeking to compel Defendants to adjudicate her
application. Dkt. No. 1. On January 7, 2025, the parties filed a joint stipulation to
stay the case until December 31, 2025, based on the parties’ agreement that USCIS
will interview Plaintiff on August 19, 2025. Dkt. No. 11.
The parties request this stay in the interest of judicial economy, noting that
Plaintiff will voluntarily dismiss this case upon receipt of the asylum decision. In
the Court’s experience with numerous similar requests in recent mandamus actions
challenging similar delays, the setting of an agreed interview date generally leads
to the resolution of the parties’ dispute without the need for further intervention by
the Court. However, staying cases requires the continued commitment of judicial
resources to monitoring the cases and ensuring compliance with requirements to
file status reports. It also increases the burden on the parties to file status reports or
seek dismissal of the stayed case upon resolution of the matter.
It appears that the more efficient approach is to dismiss this action without
prejudice to either party moving to reopen nunc pro tunc in the event that further
Court intervention becomes necessary. The Court perceives no practical difference
between this approach and the relief stipulated by the parties, apart from
1

eliminating the need for future monitoring or action if the parties honor their
agreement, as the Court expects them to. To further conserve judicial and party
resources, the Court intends to adopt this approach unless any party objects.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without
prejudice to any party seeking to vacate this order and reopen the action nunc pro
tunc in the event that Plaintiff is unable to receive a determination in the time
contemplated by the parties.
Any party who objects to the dismissal of this action as ordered herein shall
file a request to reopen the case no later than seven days after entry of this order.
The parties will then be required to appear before this Court at a status conference
that will be set within fourteen days of filing the objection to discuss the most
efficient way to proceed. Failure to timely file a request to reopen the case will be
deemed consent to dismissal as ordered.

Date: January 7, 2025

___________________________
Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr.
United States District Judge

2