Kashannejad v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services et al

Filing 88

ORDER Re Defendants' Response to 84 Order to Show Cause and Plaintiff's Request for Clarification and Guidance. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 5/18/2012. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/18/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

JAMSHID S. KASHANNEJAD,

9

Plaintiff,

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11

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

12
13

No. C-11-2228 EMC
ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE
TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND
PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR
CLARIFICATION AND GUIDANCE
(Docket Nos. 85-86)

Defendants.
___________________________________/

14
15
16

The Court has reviewed Defendants’ response to the order to show cause, dated April 30,

17

2012, as well as Plaintiff’s reply thereto, in which he also makes a request for clarification. Having

18

considered the parties’ submissions, the Court hereby rules as follows.

19

A.

Defendants’ Response to Order to Show Cause

20

Because Defendants have submitted evidence showing that the CBP was contacted prior to

21

issuance of the transportation letter, see Vinet Decl. ¶ 5, Defendants have demonstrated substantial

22

compliance with the order to show cause. Accordingly, the Court discharges the order to show

23

cause as to why Mr. Vinet should not be held in contempt for failure to comply with the Court’s

24

order of January 23, 2012.

25

The Court also discharges the order to show cause as to why Defendants should not be

26

ordered to pay the reasonable travel cost for Plaintiff to pick up the new transportation letter from

27

Dubai. Defendants are now willing to mail the transportation letter to Plaintiff, which would obviate

28

the need for Plaintiff to travel to Dubai. However, Plaintiff fairly makes the point that the

1

transportation letter is only valid for 30 days after the date of issuance, see Vinet Decl. ¶ 7; mailing

2

the transportation letter will eat into the 30-day period by which Plaintiff has to make travel plans.

3

Accordingly, the Court modifies its prior orders to require that the transportation letter shall be valid

4

from the date it is sent to Plaintiff and for 45 days thereafter. The Court shall also require

5

Defendants to mail the transportation letter using a delivery tracking method.

6

In addition to the rulings above, the Court hereby orders that, before Defendants are required

previously received in Dubai; (2) provide Defendants with two new photographs; and (3) provide

9

Defendants with an address (presumably in Tehran) where he can receive and sign for a package

10

from Defendants (i.e., the new transportation letter). Plaintiff must mail the above to Defendants

11
For the Northern District of California

to issue the new transportation letter, Plaintiff must (1) return the two transportation letters he

8

United States District Court

7

using a delivery tracking method and must provide Defendants with the delivery tracking

12

information. See Vinet Decl. ¶ 9.

13

Upon receipt of the mailing from Plaintiff, Defendants have 14 days to mail (using a delivery

14

tracking method) a new transportation letter to Plaintiff. As noted above, the new transportation

15

letter shall be valid for 45 days. Unless Plaintiff otherwise notifies Defendants, the transportation

16

letter shall identify Tehran as the departure city; Los Angeles/LAX as the arrival city/port of entry;

17

and Aeroflot (airline) as the carrier. Plaintiff’s obligation to provide a copy of his itinerary to

18

Defendants and within a particular timeframe remains the same as previously ordered.

19

The transportation letter(s) that Defendants mails to Plaintiff may be sealed, and Plaintiff is

20

hereby advised that, if he breaks the seal(s), that may jeopardize his ability to board the airplane

21

and/or cause complications at LAX. See Vinet Decl. ¶ 10. However, to allay Plaintiff’s concerns,

22

the Court shall require Defendants to include as part of their mailing to Plaintiff an unsealed

23

courtesy copy of the letter so that he may view its contents. The courtesy copy given to Plaintiff

24

(and the courtesy copy alone) may include markings to indicate that it is not an official document.

25

The Court shall also require Defendants to file a declaration certifying that they have issued the new

26

transportation letter in compliance with the Court’s order of April 30, 2012, as modified herein. The

27

declaration shall be filed within one week of the mailing to Plaintiff.

28

2

1
2

B.

Plaintiff’s Request for Clarification
Plaintiff’s request for a clarification is denied as moot. The Court has already made clear by

3

its order of April 30, 2012, that it not expressed any opinion as to whether 8 C.F.R. §

4

245a.2(u)(2)(ii) may be applied against him. See Docket No. 84 (Order at 3). Its order of October

5

18, 2011, addressed only the issue of whether Defendants were judicially estopped from asserting

6

the regulation against him. See Docket No. 40 (Order at 13-16).

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
Dated: May 18, 2012

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

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

3