Kashannejad v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services et al

Filing 167

ORDER Re 166 Defendants' Filing of November 6, 2012. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 11/6/2012. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/6/2012)

Download PDF
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, v. UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, et al., ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ FILING OF NOVEMBER 6, 2012 (Docket No. 166) 12 13 Defendants. ___________________________________/ 14 15 16 Previously, the Court issued an order instructing Defendants to provide a declaration 17 certifying whether it was possible for the transportation letter(s) to be provided to the Swiss embassy 18 in Tehran by a means suggested by Plaintiff in his filing of November 2, 2012. See Docket No. 165 19 (order). Defendants filed a declaration on November 6, 2012, in which they essentially confirm that 20 the means suggested by Plaintiff is possible. See generally Docket No. 166 (Vinet Decl.). 21 Defendants suggest, however, that, because of the time that this process may take, a pick-up date in 22 early December 2012 is advisable. Plaintiff had previously stated an intent to pick up the 23 transportation letter(s) on November 25, 2012. 24 In light of the above, the Court hereby modifies its prior orders to the extent that Plaintiff 25 shall no longer be required to pick up the transportation letter(s) from a U.S. embassy in Turkey. 26 Rather, the transportation letter(s) shall be conveyed to the Swiss embassy in Tehran by the means 27 explained in the Vinet declaration. The transportation letter shall identify Emirates as the airline 28 carrier as this is the carrier that was identified by Plaintiff in his filing of November 2. 1 The parties are instructed to meet and confer to determine what date is most appropriate for 2 pick-up from the Swiss embassy in Tehran. By November 9, 2012, the parties shall file a joint 3 statement, in which they should specify the agreed-upon pick-up date. The Court emphasizes that it 4 fully expects the parties to reach an agreement on this narrow issue; however, if they have not 5 reached an agreement, then each party should, in the joint statement, state what the proposed pick-up 6 date should be and why. The party should also explain why the opposing side’s proposed pick-up 7 date is not feasible. Both parties are forewarned that they risk being sanctioned if they take a 8 position that is not substantially justified. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 Dated: November 6, 2012 13 _________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?