Kashannejad v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services et al

Filing 72

ORDER Re 71 Plaintiff's Report of February 29, 2012. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 3/1/2012. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/1/2012)

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 REPORT OF
FEBRUARY 29, 2012

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

(Docket No. 71)

12
13

Defendants.
___________________________________/

14
15
16

Previously, the Court ordered Plaintiff Jamshid S. Kashannejad “to provide Defendants with

17

the new desired date of travel and the intended carrier and port of entry by March 1, 2012.” Docket

18

No. 70 (Order at 2). On February 29, 2012, Mr. Kashannejad filed a report in response to the

19

Court’s order. Having reviewed that report, the Court hereby rules as follows.

20

1.

Mr. Kashannejad has failed to comply with the Court’s order. The Court’s order

21

required that he provide to Defendants, inter alia, the intended carrier -- i.e., the specific carrier. See

22

also Docket No. 58 (Order at 2) (stating that “Defendants have a good faith basis for wanting Mr.

23

Kashannejad’s transportation letter to include the specific carrier and point of entry”) (emphasis

24

added). In his report, Mr. Kashannejad simply states that he intends to travel by an air carrier and

25

that he will give the name of the specific airline when he serves his itinerary on Defendants one

26

week before his first date of travel. Mr. Kashannejad is ordered to correct this deficiency by serving

27

on Defendants the name of the specific carrier. Service must be effected within one day of the date

28

of this order.

1

2.

Mr. Kashannejad suggests in his report that Defendants’ declaration of February 23,

2

2012, is insufficient because it does not “detail[] how [he] will be permitted to come into the United

3

States, nor have [Defendants] stated that TL [transportation letter] is sufficient for plaintiff’s return

4

to the United States.” Pl.’s Rpt. at 1. The Court does not agree. The Vinet declaration states that

5

Mr. Kashannejad’s lawful temporary resident status has been reinstated, and so “once he reports to

6

the U.S. Consulate to pick up his transportation letter he will be allowed to fly to the United States.”

7

Docket No. 69 (Vinet Decl. ¶ 7). In other words, because Mr. Kashannejad is a LTR, the

8

transportation letter will be all that he needs to return to the United States.

9
IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

Dated: March 1, 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