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)

Download PDF
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

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?