Azoulai v. Holder et al

Filing 14

STIPULATION AND MODIFIED ORDER re 13 Stipulation to Hold Case in Abeyance filed by Robin Barrett, Rand Beers, Alejandro Mayorkas, Eric H. Holder, Jr., James T. Wyrough. Case Management Statement due by 9/23/2014. Case Management Conference set for 9/30/2014 10:00 AM in Courtroom 4, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Vince Chhabria on 6/27/2014. (knm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/1/2014)

6

STUART F. DELERY
Assistant Attorney General
LANA L. VAHAB (DC 976203)
Trial Attorney
United States Department of Justice
Office of Immigration Litigation
District Court Section
Ben Franklin Station, P.O. Box 868
Washington, DC 20044
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

7

Attorneys for Defendants

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

8
9
10

AVI AZOULAI
11

Plaintiffs,
12

vs.
13

ERIK H. HOLDER, Jr., et al.,
14

Defendants.
15
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.: C 3:13-cv-05493-VC
STIPULATION TO HOLD CASE IN
ABEYANCE and [PROPOSED] ORDER
AS MODIFIED

17

STIPULATION TO HOLD CASE IN ABEYANCE
18

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED pursuant to L.R. Civ. 7-12, that the Court stay the
19

proceedings in this case for 90 days to allow USCIS to adjudicate Plaintiff’s new naturalization
20

application. A decision on Plaintiff’s new application is expected within 90 days or less. The
21

parties will notify the Court when Plaintiff has received the new decision. If the actions are
22

adverse to Plaintiff, the parties will jointly ask the Court to reopen the case and proceed with de
23

novo review of the agency’s decision as provided under 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c). If the agency’s
24

decision is favorable to Plaintiff, Plaintiff will file a voluntary dismissal with prejudice within
25

ten days of receiving the decision.
26

This stipulation is necessary to conserve the resources of the court and the parties. In
27

support thereof, the parties state as follows:
28

STIPULATION TO HOLD CASE IN ABEYANCE
CASE NO. C 3:13-CV-5493-VC

1

1
2
3

1. Plaintiff filed the instant action under 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) on November 27, 2013, and
effectuated service on March 12, 2014. (ECF No. 1.)
2. Plaintiff’s action seeks review of the denial of his naturalization application, which the

4

agency denied on the belief that Plaintiff had provided false testimony during the statutory good

5

moral character period and that he therefore lacked the good moral character necessary to

6

naturalize.

7

3. After a discussion, the parties agreed that given that Plaintiff did not provide false

8

testimony (about his previous arrests) at his October 15, 2012 and February 13, 2013

9

naturalization interviews, any false testimony that he may have provided at previous

10

naturalization interviews would not necessarily be a statutory bar to his naturalization were he to

11

reapply for naturalization now. This is so because the false testimony believed to have been

12

provided by Plaintiff previously, at his January 8, 2009 and February 10, 2009 naturalization

13

interviews, would fall outside the five-year statutory period during which Plaintiff is required to

14

demonstrate good moral character under 8 U.S.C. § 1427.

15

4. In the interest of judicial economy, the parties have agreed that instead of litigating

16

Plaintiff’s entitlement to naturalization under his original naturalization applications, Plaintiff

17

will file a new naturalization application, which USCIS will adjudicate. Plaintiff filed his new

18

naturalization application on May 15, 2014, background checks revealed no new arrests and

19

USCIS is prepared to adjudicate Plaintiff’s application within 90 days of this stipulation.

20

5. The parties will notify the Court when Plaintiff has received the new decision.

21

6. If the agency’s decision is favorable to Plaintiff, Plaintiff will file a voluntary dismissal

22
23

with prejudice within ten days of receiving the decision.
7. If the decision is adverse to Plaintiff, the parties will jointly ask the Court to continue to

24

stay the case in order to allow Plaintiff to exhaust his administrative remedies as required under 8

25

U.S.C. § 1447(a). If the decision is still adverse after Plaintiff’s administrative appeal, the

26

parties will jointly ask the Court to reopen the case and proceed with de novo review of the

27

agency’s decision as provided under 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c).

28

STIPULATION TO HOLD CASE IN ABEYANCE
CASE NO. C 3:13-CV-5493-VC

2

1
2

8. The parties will file a status report with the court in 90 days, updating the Court as to the
status of Plaintiff’s naturalization application.

3
4

Dated: June 25, 2014

Respectfully submitted,

STUART F. DELERY
Assistant Attorney General

/s/ Lana L. VAHAB
LANA L. VAHAB
Trial Attorney
United States Department of Justice
Office of Immigration Litigation
District Court Section
P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

5
6
7
8

WILLIAM M. SILVIS
Acting Assistant Director

9
10
11
12

Attorneys for Defendants
13

17

/s/ Win Eaton (with permission)
WIN EATON
Eaton and Associates
707 18th Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
661-742-7007
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

18

Attorney for Plaintiff

Dated: June 25, 2014
14
15
16

19
20
21

[PROPOSED] ORDER AS MODIFIED
22
23
24

A Case Management Conference is scheduled for September 30, 2014, at 10:00 a.m.
A joint case management statement is due no later than September 23, 2014.
Pursuant to Stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26
27

DATE: June 27, 2014

28

__________________________________
Hon. Vince Chhabria
United States District Judge

STIPULATION TO HOLD CASE IN ABEYANCE
CASE NO. C 3:13-CV-5493-VC

3