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)
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?