Kashannejad v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services et al

Filing 202

ORDER re 198 , 199 , 200 , 201 re Parties' Status Reports. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 4/15/2013. (emclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/15/2013)

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 PARTIES’ STATUS
REPORTS

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

(Docket Nos. 198-201)

12
13

Defendants.
___________________________________/

14
15

Plaintiff has filed two status reports in which he essentially asks the Court to delay closure of

16

the case so that he may obtain permission from authorities in Iran to leave the country. Having

17

considered Plaintiff’s status reports, as well as Defendants’ responsive status reports, the Court

18

hereby rules as follows.

19

1.

To the extent Plaintiff argues that Defendants have failed to comply with the Court’s

20

order of April 3, 2013, the Court rejects that argument. First, the Court never required Defendants to

21

submit any evidence regarding their contact with Emirates and CBP. See Docket No. 197 (order).

22

Second, Defendants have now offered proof that they did contact Emirates and CBP. See Docket

23

No. 199 (status report). That Emirates may not have responded to Defendants is immaterial.

24

Finally, Plaintiff’s second status report (not to mention Defendants’) establishes that there was no

25

problem with him boarding the plane from the airline’s perspective. The only reason why Plaintiff

26

did not board the plane was because he was purportedly told, either by the “passport police” or the

27

“airport police” that he could not leave Iran without the permission of Iranian authorities (which was

28

apparently consistent with what he was told by an Iranian attorney). But see Docket No. 201 (Ex. 1)

1

(e-mail, dated April 14, 2013, from B. Afshar to V. Lawrence, et al., stating that “I have also

2

checked with immigration office at the airport” but that Plaintiff was “not referred to immigration

3

gates and there is no record for manual rejection as they don’t keep any record for that,” although

4

“there is a possibility that his name was in [the immigration office’s] manual list”).

5
6
7

2.

The evidence of record establishes that Defendants did all that was necessary to

ensure that Plaintiff could travel on April 14, 2013, on Emirates.
3.

Since approximately September 2010, Plaintiff has been aware of the fact that he

8

signed a statement “confess[ing] that he had left [Iran] illegally, or without permission.” Docket No.

9

198 (Pl.’s Status Report at 2). Since at least February 26, 2013, Plaintiff has been specifically aware
that his attempt to leave Iran could be a problem because of this confession. See Docket No. 186

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

(Pl.’s Status Report at 3-4). Since March 13, 2013, Plaintiff has known that the Court would close

12

the file in the case on April 15, 2013. See Docket No. 194 (order). Yet in spite of all of the above,

13

between March 4, 2013 (i.e., the date Plaintiff purchased a ticket from Emirates) and April 5, 2013,

14

Plaintiff did nothing to address the problem with his leaving Iran based on Iranian law. Plaintiff did

15

not consult with an attorney about the issue until April 6, 2013, approximately a week before his

16

date of travel. Based on Plaintiff’s own evidence, had he acted in a more timely fashion, this

17

problem could have been cured in 10 working days. See Docket No. 198 (Pl.’s Decl. ¶ 3).

18

4.

Because Plaintiff’s inability to return to the United States on April 14, 2013, was a

19

result of his own actions (or rather inactions) and not Defendants, the Court declines Plaintiff’s

20

requested relief. Per the Court’s prior orders, the Clerk of the Court is instructed to enter a

21

final judgment in favor of Plaintiff and close the file in the case. Defendants are discharged

22

from any further obligation to assist Plaintiff in his return to the United States. See Docket

23

Nos. 194, 197 (orders).

24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 15, 2013

26
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

27
28

2