Atiffi v. Clinton et al

Filing 32

ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 12/10/2013 AMENDING the "USCIS letter" references in 29 Order (page 4 at lines 9 & 10 and page 5 at line 7) to read "letter from the consular office"; DENYING 31 Motion to Correct [ 29] Order as to the Government's request to correct the court's reference to a consular official's ability to grant "immediate relative status"; DENYING 31 Motion to Correct 29 Order as to the Government's request to delete Footnote 18; DISMISSING this matter, without prejudice, pursuant to 30 Stipulation for Dismissal. CASE CLOSED. (Michel, G)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MOHAMMED MUSA ATIFFI,

12

CIV. S-12-3001 LKK/DAD

Plaintiff,

13
14

No.

v.

ORDER

HILARY RODHAM CLINTON, et
al.,

15
Defendants.
16
17
The Government has filed an application pursuant to Fed. R.

18
19

Civ. P. 60(a), for relief from the court’s order of November 6,

20

2013 (ECF No. 29), solely to make three general “corrections” in

21

that order.1

22

the case, have also submitted a stipulation to dismiss the case

23

without prejudice.
1.

24

27

The parties, having now settled

The Application for Reconsideration.

First, the Government asks the court to correct its

25
26

See ECF No. 31.

1

Because the application will be granted only in part, to
correct a plain error, the court finds that no response from
plaintiff is necessary.

28
1

1

reference to a “USCIS letter.”

2

out that the November 8, 2012 letter to Ms. Atiffi is from the

3

consular office, not the United States Citizenship and

4

Immigration Services (“USCIS”).

5

the order to “USCIS letter” (ECF No. 29 at 4 lines 9 & 10, and at

6

5 line 7), are hereby AMENDED to read “letter from the consular

7

office.”

The Government correctly points

Accordingly, the references in

8

Second, The Government objects to the court’s reference to a

9

consular official’s ability to grant “immediate relative status,”

10

asserting that consular officials cannot grant such status.

11

Government further asserts that the court cited only 22 C.F.R.

12

§ 42.21, and misinterpreted the applicable regulations, for the

13

proposition that consular officials could grant such status.

14

fact, however, the court cited 22 C.F.R. § 42.41 for that

15

proposition, and quoted it in the accompanying footnote, No. 6.

16

The regulation reads:

17
18
19

The

In

Consular officers are authorized to grant to
an alien the immediate relative … status
accorded in a petition approved in the
alien's behalf upon receipt of the approved
petition or official notification of its
approval.

20
21

22 C.F.R. § 42.41 (emphasis added).

22

does not mention this regulation, nor that the court cited,

23

quoted and relied upon it.

24

to “correct” the order in this respect is not well-taken and is

25

hereby DENIED.

26

The Government’s application

Accordingly the Government’s request

Third, the Government requests that the court delete

27

Footnote 18 of the order, asserting that the footnote “suggested”

28

that the petition could be returned to the State Department
2

1

“without the participation of Plaintiff.”

2

government misreads the footnote.

3

plaintiff would have no participation in the process, only that

4

he is prevented from “participating meaningfully,” if the

5

Government fails to provide a specific reason for the denial of a

6

visa.

7

respect is accordingly DENIED.

8
9
10

ECF No. 31 at 2.

The

It does not suggest that

The Government’s request to amend the order in this

2.

Dismissal.

Pursuant to the Stipulation of the parties (ECF No. 30), the
matter is DISMISSED without prejudice.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

DATED:

December 10, 2013.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3