Woldemariam v. Bardini et al

Filing 11

Order by Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros granting 10 Stipulation to Stay Proceedings.(bns, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/25/2024)

Download PDF
1 ISMAIL J. RAMSEY (CABN 189820) United States Attorney 2 PAMELA T. JOHANN (CABN 145558) Chief, Civil Division 3 ELIZABETH D. KURLAN (CABN 255869) Assistant United States Attorney 4 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055 San Francisco, California 94102-3495 5 Telephone: (415) 436-7298 Facsimile: (415) 436-6748 6 Elizabeth.Kurlan@usdoj.gov 7 Attorneys for Defendants 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 11 12 RAHEL WOLDEMARIAM, Plaintiff, 13 14 v. 15 EMILIA BARDINI, Director of the San Francisco Asylum Office, et al., 16 STIPULATION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS; [PROPOSED] ORDER Defendants. 17 18 C 3:24-cv-06583-LJC The parties, through their undersigned attorneys, hereby stipulate and respectfully request the 19 Court to stay proceedings in this case for a limited time, until May 14, 2025. The parties make this joint 20 request because they are pursuing an administrative resolution that may render further litigation of this 21 case unnecessary. 22 1. Plaintiff filed this mandamus action seeking adjudication of her Form I-589, Application 23 for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services 24 (“USCIS”) has scheduled the asylum interview to take place on January 14, 2025. USCIS agrees to work 25 diligently towards completing adjudication of Plaintiff’s application, absent the need for further 26 adjudicative action or unforeseen circumstances that would require additional time for adjudication. 27 28 Stip to Stay Proceedings C 3:24-cv-06583-LJC 1 2. 1 Plaintiff agrees to submit all supplemental documents and evidence no later than seven to 2 ten days prior to the interview, pursuant to USCIS policy. Plaintiff agrees that the failure to timely 3 submit this evidence may result in the rescheduling of the interview at no fault of USCIS. 3. 4 If needed by Plaintiff or her dependent(s), Plaintiff shall bring her own interpreter to her 5 asylum interview. See https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/alerts/affirmative-asylum-applicants-must6 provide-interpreters-starting-sept-13. Plaintiff recognizes that failure to bring an interpreter to her 7 interview may result in the interview being rescheduled at no fault of USCIS. 8 4. Upon receipt of USCIS’ decision, Plaintiff agrees to voluntarily dismiss this case. 9 5. The parties agree to bear their own attorney fees and costs. 10 11 12 13 14 Accordingly, the parties stipulate and request that the proceedings in this case be stayed until May 14, 2025, at which time the parties will file a joint status report with the Court. At that time, the parties may request a further continuance of the stay of proceedings, dismissal of the litigation if appropriate, or placement of the case back on the Court’s active docket. A stay of proceedings in this 15 case will benefit the parties and conserve the Court’s resources while the parties pursue a potential 16 administrative resolution. 17 18 19 Dated: November 22, 2024 Respectfully submitted 1, ISMAIL J. RAMSEY United States Attorney 20 21 /s/ Elizabeth D. Kurlan ELIZABETH D. KURLAN Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for Defendants 22 23 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 1 In accordance with Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), the filer of this document attests that all signatories listed below concur in the filing of this document. 28 Stip to Stay Proceedings C 3:24-cv-06583-LJC 2 1 Dated: November 23, 2024 /s/ Charles Carr CHARLES C. CARR Murray Osorio PLLC Attorney for Plaintiff 2 3 4 5 6 [PROPOSED] ORDER Pursuant to stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 9 Date: November 25, 2024 HON. LISA J. CISNEROS United States Magistrate Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Stip to Stay Proceedings C 3:24-cv-06583-LJC 3 _

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?