Kashannejad v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services et al

Filing 172

ORDER Re Status Reports 169 170 171 . Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 11/30/2012. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/30/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 JAMSHID S. KASHANNEJAD, 9 No. C-11-2228 EMC Plaintiff, ORDER RE STATUS REPORTS v. (Docket Nos. 169-171) 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, et al., 12 13 Defendants. ___________________________________/ 14 15 16 Plaintiff has filed a status report in which he claims that there were problems with the 17 transportation letter(s) provided by Defendants (via the Swiss embassy). For example, Plaintiff 18 points out that the content of the transportation letter(s) does not comply with the Court’s prior 19 order. See Docket No. 128 (order). Plaintiff also points out that the transportation letter(s) 20 erroneously refers to Aeroflot at one point instead of Emirates. Finally, Plaintiff opines that “[i]t is 21 highly unlikely that the envelope addressed to CBP contains all documents that are ordered by the 22 [C]ourt” -- i.e., both the Court’s order of April 30, 2012, see Docket No. 84 (order), and the 23 Mulraney declaration of April 26, 2012, see Docket No. 83 (declaration) -- because of differences in 24 weight between the various letters. Plaintiff asserts that the above problems establish that 25 Defendants have purposefully defied the Court’s orders and therefore he is entitled to relief, more 26 specifically, (1) a “temporary resident card, and any other document to allow him to purchase [a] 27 ticket, board the plane, and return to the United States” and (2) reimbursement “for all needless costs 28 that [Defendants] have caused him.” Pl.’s Status Rpt. at 2-3. 1 In response, Defendants filed their own status report, in which they essentially admit to the 2 first two errors. Defendants, however, maintain that the errors were inadvertent mistakes and note 3 that they conveyed such to Plaintiff immediately upon receiving his status report. Defendants do not 4 expressly address Plaintiff’s final claim of error; however, they implicitly do so by arguing that there 5 is no need for the air carrier transportation letters to have as attachments the Court’s April 30 order 6 and the Mulraney declaration as those documents are directed to the attention of CBP, and not the 7 air carrier. See Defs.’ Status Rpt. at 2. Finally, Defendants propose a plan as to how the Court 8 should proceed. unsympathetic to Plaintiff’s frustration, there is insufficient evidence to establish that Defendants 11 For the Northern District of California With respect to Plaintiff’s request for relief, it is hereby DENIED. While the Court is not 10 United States District Court 9 have acted in bad faith. Indeed, the fact that Defendants immediately contacted Plaintiff upon 12 receiving his status report indicates to the contrary. For this reason alone, the relief requested by 13 Plaintiff is inappropriate. In addition, the Court notes that a temporary resident card is not an option, 14 as it has previously held in other orders. See, e.g., Docket No. 148 (Order at 3) (taking note that 15 “Defendants have provided evidence that they no longer issue I-688s”). As for Plaintiff’s request 16 for reimbursement, it is not appropriate as a brief delay in reissuing new transportation letters will 17 not cause him any real monetary damage. 18 While the Court thus denies Plaintiff’s request for relief, it does not condone Defendants’ 19 conduct. Even though Defendants appear to have acted inadvertently, their sloppiness (for lack of a 20 better word) has engendered yet another problem. The parties will now have to go through another 21 round of getting the transportation letters to Plaintiff. Defendants have proposed a reasonable plan 22 as to how to get those transportation letters to Plaintiff, which the Court largely adopts (as itemized 23 below). To ensure that there are no further problems, the Court shall require Defendants to provide 24 a declaration, once those transportation letters are sent, certifying that they have complied with this 25 order. The declaration shall also include as an attachment the courtesy copy of the transportation 26 letter given to Plaintiff. The declaration must be provided by a person with personal knowledge, and 27 this person risks being subject to sanctions if there is a failure by Defendants to comply with this 28 2 1 order. The declaration shall be filed within two business days of the transportation letters 2 being sent to the American Embassy in Switzerland. 3 4 5 As to how the new transportation letters shall be given to Plaintiff, the Court orders as follows: 1. Within two business days of the date of this order, Defendants shall issue new 6 transportation letters to Plaintiff.1 The content of the letters shall match the content of the letter 7 submitted by Defendants as Exhibit D (attached to its status report of November 28, 2012), except 8 for the dates which will need to be filled in. See Docket No. 170 (Exhibit D). 9 2. Two sealed letters shall be prepared for the air carrier, Emirates Airlines. Although the Court agrees with Defendants that the air carrier likely has no interest in the two attachments 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 referred to the CBP portion of the letter, those attachments shall still be included as a part of the 12 letters to the air carrier (if only to ensure that the air carrier will not reject the letters because they 13 lack the attachments). 14 15 16 3. One sealed letter shall be prepared for CBP. This letter, like the letters for the air carrier, shall include the two attachments referred to in the CBP portion of the letter. 4. Previously, the Court required its order of April 30, 2012, see Docket No. 84 (order), 17 to be one of the two attachments referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 above. However, the Court agrees 18 with Defendants that, given the passage of time, it makes sense for this order (in lieu of the April 30 19 order) to be attached instead. The Court reaffirms in this order that Defendants must instruct CBP to 20 admit Plaintiff (Jamshid Kashannejad) as a returning lawful temporary resident, if and when he 21 arrives at LAX, and that CBP Section Chief Bruce R. Mulraney has provided a declaration certifying 22 that, if Mr. Kashannejad arrives at LAX, CBP will admit him as a returning lawful temporary 23 resident. 24 5. An unsealed courtesy copy of the transportation letter shall be provided to Plaintiff. 25 The courtesy copy may contain a watermark to make clear that it is not a valid transportation letter. 26 The courtesy copy shall also include the two attachments referred to in paragraphs 2-4 above. 27 1 28 Defendants have represented that they have sufficient photos of Plaintiff to issue new letters. See Defs.’ Status Rpt. at 2. 3 1 6. Within two business days of the date of this order, the transportation letters shall be 2 sent from USCIS in Greece through the American Embassy in Bern, Switzerland, to the Swiss 3 Embassy in Tehran. The delivery shall be accomplished by the means explained in Defendants’ 4 status report of November 6, 2012, and the accompanying Vinet declaration. See Docket No. 166 5 (report and declaration). 6 7. Once the transportation letters arrive at the Swiss Embassy, Plaintiff shall be notified 7 to pick up the letters by email at the email address that he has on file with the Court. Plaintiff shall 8 have five business days to pick up the letters. Upon his arrival at the Swiss Embassy, Plaintiff must 9 first return the transportation letters for the air carrier and CBP that were previously delivered to him on November 21, 2012 (Plaintiff may keep his courtesy copy), before the Swiss Embassy will 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 deliver the new letters to him. 12 8. The travel letters shall be valid for forty-five days. 13 9. Plaintiff shall provide his itinerary for traveling to LAX in a filing with the Court at 14 15 least seven days prior to travel. 10. As discussed above, Defendants shall provide a declaration certifying compliance 16 with this order within two days of the transportation letters being sent to the American Embassy in 17 Switzerland. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 Dated: November 30, 2012 22 _________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

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?