Kashannejad v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services et al

Filing 52

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Granting 44 Defendants' Motion for Enlargement of Time to Comply with Court's Order. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/2/2011)

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 GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF
TIME TO COMPLY WITH COURT’S
ORDER

12
13

Defendants.
___________________________________/

(Docket No. 44)

14
15
16

Previously, the Court ordered Defendants to give to Mr. Kashannejad, by a date certain, the

17

necessary papers so that he could return to the United States or “to otherwise effectuate his return to

18

the United States.” Docket No. 40 (Order at 17). In the same order, the Court noted that Defendants

19

could petition for additional time, if necessary, upon a showing of good cause. Defendants have

20

now moved for an enlargement of time to comply with the Court’s order.

21

In his response to Defendants’ motion, Mr. Kashannejad does not quibble with the request

22

for additional time per se. Instead, Mr. Kashannejad mostly disagrees with Defendants as to how

23

they should comply with the Court’s order. Because Mr. Kashannejad does not present a substantive

24

opposition to the request for additional time and because the Court further finds that Defendants

25

have made an adequate showing as to why additional time is needed, the Court GRANTS

26

Defendants’ motion. Defendants shall have an additional thirty days from the date of this order to

27

provide Mr. Kashannejad with the necessary papers so that he may return to the United States.

28

1

To the extent the parties have a dispute as to what papers should be issued to Mr.

2

Kashannejad, the Court declines to follow Mr. Kashannejad’s suggestion that it order Defendants to

3

issue him a replacement I-688 card. It is puzzling that I-688’s have purportedly been eliminated, see

4

Vinet Decl. ¶ 10, particularly when 8 C.F.R. § 245a.2(n)(3) still seems to refer to I-688’s. See 8

5

C.F.R. § 245a.2(n)(3) (providing that, “[u]pon the granting of an application for adjustment to

6

temporary resident status,” “[t]he applicant may appear at any Service office and, upon surrender of

7

the previously issued Employment Authorization Document, will be issued Form I-688, Temporary

8

Resident Card, authorizing employment and travel abroad”). Nevertheless, even assuming that I-

9

688’s may still be issued, the Court is not inclined to order the issuance of a replacement card
because the evidence of record indicates that Mr. Kashannejad traveled abroad likely knowing that

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

he did not have his original card, it having been taken from him in 1989 in conjunction with his

12

arrest for a crime. See Docket No. 40 (Order at 10).

13

Moreover, Mr. Kashannejad seems amenable to having a transportation letter issued and

14

cabled to the U.S. Embassy in Dubai. See Pl.’s Resp. at 3. The only issue remaining is whether Mr.

15

Kashannejad must first provide Defendants with his travel itinerary before the transportation letter is

16

issued.

17

Defendants argue that Mr. Kashannejad must provide the itinerary first because

18

“[t]ransportation letters are not open ended and are for a specific purpose, in this case, to allow

19

Plaintiff to travel to the United States.” Mot. at 2. In response, Mr. Kashannejad argues that he

20

cannot provide the itinerary first because “it is legally impossible to get either the ticket or

21

confirmed itinerary without first presenting” a transportation letter or some other comparable

22

document such as a I-688. Neither Defendants nor Mr. Kashannejad has provided evidence in

23

support of their or his respective argument. In light of this deficiency, the Court concludes that the

24

simplest way to resolve this dispute is for Mr. Kashannejad to provide to Defendants his desired or

25

intended date of travel, after which Defendants shall issue a transportation letter that covers that date

26
27
28

2

1

of travel as well 30 days thereafter (in the event that Mr. Kashannejad is unable to travel on the

2

desired or intended date of travel, whether because of ticket unavailability or other problem).1

3

This order disposes of Docket No. 44.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

Dated: December 2, 2011

8
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Even if transportation letters are not open ended, Defendants have not provided any
evidence demonstrating that a transportation letter providing for a 30-day window of time to travel is
not possible.

3