Kashannejad v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services et al
Filing
70
ORDER Re 68 Plaintiff's Brief of February 22, 2012. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 2/23/2012. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/23/2012)
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 BRIEF OF
FEBRUARY 22, 2012
v.
UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION SERVICES, et al.,
(Docket No. 68)
12
13
Defendants.
___________________________________/
14
15
Plaintiff Jamshid S. Kashannejad has filed a brief in which he takes issue with Defendants’
16
compliance with this Court’s orders and further asks for certain relief. Having considered Mr.
17
Kashannejad’s brief, the Court hereby rules as follows.
18
1.
To the extent Mr. Kashannejad asserts that Defendants have failed to comply with the
19
Court’s orders, that contention is rejected. In addition, at this juncture, there is insufficient evidence
20
of “road blocking” or delay by Defendants.
21
2.
In his brief Mr. Kashannejad states that he will provide travel-related information to
22
Defendants (i.e., desired date of travel and intended carrier and port of entry) only after Defendants
23
provide the declaration -- due today -- detailing the process by which he is to return to the United
24
States. This statement by Mr, Kashannejad is not acceptable. It makes it impossible for Defendants
25
to comply with the Court’s prior order of January 23, 2012. See Docket No. 63 (order). Under that
26
order, Defendants were required to provide -- by February 23, 2012 -- not only a declaration
27
detailing the process by which Mr. Kashannejad is to return to the United States but also the
28
necessary paperwork for him to return to the United States.
1
3.
In light of the circumstances described in (2) above, the Court hereby modifies its
2
prior orders. The Court hereby orders Mr. Kashannejad to provide Defendants with the new desired
3
date of travel and the intended carrier and port of entry by March 1, 2012. Defendants shall then
4
have until March 29, 2012, to provide Mr. Kashannejad with the necessary paperwork to enable his
5
return to the United States.
6
4.
As the Court previously ordered, once Mr. Kashannejad purchases a ticket(s), he
7
must provide a copy of his itinerary to Defendants. Mr. Kashannejad must serve a copy of his
8
itinerary on Defendants at least one week before his first date of travel. Mr. Kashannejad should
9
effect service through this Court’s electronic filing system (“ECF”).
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
5.
The parties should meet and confer so that Mr. Kashannejad will have at least two
weeks’ notice as to when he may pick up the paperwork from Defendants.
6.
In addition, the parties should meet and confer to determine whether there is another
13
U.S. embassy (i.e., other than the one in Dubai) where Defendants can have the paperwork ready for
14
Mr. Kashannejad to pick up. This meet and confer must take place by March 1, 2012. By March
15
1, 2012, the parties must also report back to the Court on the results of that meet and confer. Each
16
party shall file a letter brief no longer than two single-spaced pages to report back on the results. If
17
no agreement was reached, then each party should propose what U.S. embassy(ies) should be used.
18
To the extent Mr. Kashannejad maintains that travel to Dubai would be either impossible or very
19
difficult, he must attach to his letter brief competent evidence supporting that claim. A naked
20
assertion that travel to Dubai would not be possible will be given no weight.
21
22
IT IS SO ORDERED.
23
24
Dated: February 23, 2012
25
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge
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?