Garcia v. Chertoff et al

Filing 35

ORDER APPROVING 34 JOINT STATUS REPORT AND STIPULATION TO EXTEND HEARING DATE. The Motion Hearing set for 3/12/2010 is CONTINUED to 9/10/2010 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, San Jose. Signed by Judge Jeremy Fogel on 1/20/2010. (jflc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/20/2010)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 J OSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO, CSBN 44332 United States Attorney J OANN M. SWANSON, CSBN 88143 Chief, Civil Division EDWARD A. OLSEN, CSBN 214150 Assistant United States Attorney 1301 Clay Street, Suite 340S Oakland, California 94612 Telephone: (510) 637-3697 FAX: (510) 637-3724 Attorneys for Respondents **E-Filed 1/20/2010** UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN JOSE DIVISION 11 12 13 Petitioner , 14 v. 15 16 17 18 19 Respondents. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Petitioner, by and through her attorney of record, and Respondents, by and through their attorneys of record, hereby stipulate, subject to approval of the Court, to extend the hearing date in the above-entitled matter by six months, in light of the following: (1) This Court has issued several orders approving the parties' stipulations to extend the date of oral argument in the above-captioned case pending a decision by the Ninth Circuit in Rajinder Singh v. Napolitano, Appeal No. 07-16988, a case that presents very similar factual and legal i s su es . (2) As the Court is aware, the Ninth Circuit issued the following order on August 11, 2009: JOINT STATUS REPORT AND STIPULATION TO EXTEND HEARING DATE C-08-5729-JF 1 MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security; NANCY ALCANTAR, Field Office Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and MICHAEL MUKASEY, Attorney General of the United States, ARACELY DE JESUS FAJARDO GARCIA, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. C 08-5729-JF JOINT STATUS REPORT AND STIPULATION TO EXTEND HEARING DATE; AND ------------------- ORDER [PROPOSED] Hearing Date: T im e: March 12, 2010 9:00 a.m. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The case is remanded to the Board of Immigration Appeals for the limited purpose of ruling upon whether the Board had jurisdiction to hear Singh's ineffective assistance of counsel claims and what effect, if any, the Attorney General's recent opinion in In re Compean, 25 I & N Dec. 1, 3 (A.G. 2009), has on this case. The Board shall advise the court of any action or decision. Singh v. Napolitano, 577 F.3d 988 (Order). (3) The BIA since has asked the parties (the petitioner in the above-entitled action and the Department of Homeland Security) to file briefs on the questions that were remanded to the BIA from the Ninth Circuit, and the parties' simultaneous briefs to the BIA are due on January 27, 2010. (4) In light of the fact that the parties in the above-captioned matter do not anticipate receiving a decision from the BIA and then from the Ninth Circuit prior to the currently-scheduled hearing date of March 12, 2010, the parties respectfully ask this Court to extend the hearing date from March 12, 2010, to September 10, 2010, at 9:00 a.m. The respondents agree to stay the petitioner's removal until October 8, 2010. Date: January 19, 2010 Respectfully submitted, J OSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO United States Attorney /s/ EDWARD A. OLSEN Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for Respondents Date: January 19, 2009 /s/ J AMES TODD BENNETT Attorney for Petitioner JOINT STATUS REPORT AND STIPULATION TO EXTEND HEARING DATE C-08-5729-JF 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1/20/2010 Date: _________________, 2010 --P---OPO--E--- ORDER [ - R ------ S --D] Pursuant to stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED that the hearing date in the above-captioned matter is continued from March 12, 2010, to September 10, 2010, at 9:00 a.m. _______________________________ J EREMY FOGEL United States District Judge JOINT STATUS REPORT AND STIPULATION TO EXTEND HEARING DATE C-08-5729-JF 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?