Weng v. Mayorkas et al

Filing 10

ORDER GRANTING #9 STIPULATION to Stay Proceedings. Status Report due by 7/24/2025. Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 11/26/2024. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/26/2024)

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 OAKLAND DIVISION 11 YI WENG, Case No. 4:24-cv-06937 HSG 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. STIPULATION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS; ORDER 14 ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, Secretary of the 15 United States Department of Homeland Security, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 The parties, through their attorneys, hereby stipulate and respectfully request the Court to stay 20 proceedings in this case for a limited time, until July 24, 2025. The parties make this joint request 21 because they are pursuing an administrative resolution that may render further litigation of this case 22 unnecessary. 23 1. Plaintiff filed this mandamus action seeking adjudication of his Form I-589, Application 24 for Asylum and Withholding of Removal. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services 25 (“USCIS”) scheduled an interview for March 26, 2025. USCIS will work diligently towards completing 26 adjudication of the I-589 application, absent the need for further adjudicative action or unforeseen 27 circumstances that would require additional time for adjudication. 28 Stipulation to Stay C 4:24-cv-06937 HSG 1 1 2. Plaintiff agrees to submit all supplemental documents and evidence to USCIS seven to 2 ten days prior to the agreed upon scheduled interview. Plaintiff agrees that failure to timely submit this 3 evidence may result in the rescheduling of the interview at no fault of USCIS. 4 3. If needed by Plaintiff or their dependent(s), Plaintiff shall bring their own interpreter to 5 their 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 their 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 the case. 9 5. The parties agree to bear their own litigation costs and attorney fees. 10 Accordingly, the parties stipulate and request that the proceedings in this case be stayed until 11 July 24, 2025, at which time the parties will file a joint status report with the Court. At that time, the 12 parties may request a further continuance of the stay of proceedings, dismissal of the litigation if 13 appropriate, or placement of the case back on the Court’s active docket. A stay of proceedings in this 14 case will benefit the parties and conserve the Court’s resources while the parties pursue a potential 15 administrative resolution. 16 Dated: November 26, 2024 Respectfully submitted, 1 17 ISMAIL J. RAMSEY United States Attorney 18 /s/ Elizabeth D. Kurlan ELIZABETH D. KURLAN Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for Defendants 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 In accordance with Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), the filer of this document attests that all 27 signatories listed herein concur in the filing of this document. 28 Stipulation to Stay C 4:24-cv-06937 HSG 2 1 Dated: November 26, 2024 /s/ Justin Wang JUSTIN WANG Baughman & Wang Attorney for Plaintiff 2 3 4 5 6 7 ORDER 8 Pursuant to stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 Date: 11/26/2024 ______________________ _ HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Stipulation to Stay C 4:24-cv-06937 HSG 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?