Kashannejad v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services et al

Filing 151

ORDER Re 149 Plaintiff's Filing of September 30, 2012. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 10/2/2012. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/2/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

JAMSHID S. KASHANNEJAD,

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C-11-2228 EMC

Plaintiff,
ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S FILING OF
SEPTEMBER 30, 2012

v.
UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION SERVICES, et al.,

(Docket No. 149)

12
13

Defendants.
___________________________________/

14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Plaintiff has filed an unsolicited brief, dated September 30, 2012. Having reviewed the
contents of that brief and the accompanying papers, the Court hereby rules as follows.
1.

Plaintiff has provided insufficient evidence that he cannot purchase or board a ticket

based on the transportation letter approved by the Court.
2.

The Court shall not require Defendants to “compel” either the Turkish or Aeroflot

21

airlines to accept the transportation letter. Indeed, there is nothing to suggest that Defendants have

22

the power or authority to compel these air carriers to accept the transportation letter. It is sufficient

23

that Plaintiff has three other air carriers who are willing to accept the transportation letter. While

24

these air carriers may be more expensive (at least the Court assumes such), Plaintiff has not made

25

any showing that the cost is unreasonable or that he could not afford the cost of such a ticket. The

26

Court also notes that Plaintiff has failed to provide the cost of a Lufthansa ticket. In any event, cost

27

is not a matter for this Court.

28

1

3.

The Court shall not require Defendants to procure a formal writing from KLM,

2

Emirates, or Lufthansa, stating that the air carrier will accept the transportation letter. However, the

3

Court shall order Defendants to meet and confer with Plaintiff to determine whether they can assist

4

him in contacting the appropriate airline representative in Tehran from whom he can purchase a

5

ticket.

6

4.

The Court shall not order a blank departure city in the transportation letter. The

7

Court has already ruled that the transportation letter may include a specific departure city. See

8

Docket No. 84 (Order at 4-5). Plaintiff has not made any showing that this imposes an undue burden

9

on him.
This order disposes of Docket No. 149.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

Dated: October 2, 2012

15
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2