Vaz v. Jaddou et al

Filing 13

ORDER granting ECF No. 12 Stipulation : Response to ECF No. 3 Petition/Complaint due by 6/8/2022. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 5/10/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

Case 2:21-cv-02204-ART-VCF Document 13 Filed 05/10/22 Page 1 of 2

6

CHRISTOPHER CHIOU
Acting United States Attorney
District of Nevada
Nevada Bar Number 14853
HOLLY A. VANCE
Assistant United States Attorney
United States Attorney’s Office
400 S. Virginia Street, Suite 900
Reno, NV 89501
[phone]
[e-mail]

7

Attorneys for Defendant

1
2
3
4
5

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10

PRYMAS VAS,

11
12
13
14
15
16

Case No. 2:21-cv-02204-ART-VCF

Plaintiff,
v.

Stipulation and Order for Extension
of Time

UR M. JADDOU, in her official capacity,
Director of USCIS; CONNIE NOLAN, in
her official capacity, USCIS Acting
Associate Director for SCOPS,

(First Request)

Defendants.

17
18

Plaintiff PRYMAS VAS, and Defendants UR M. JADDOU, in her official capacity,

19

Director of USCIS and CONNIE NOLAN, in her official capacity, USCIS Acting

20

Associate Director for SCOPS, hereby stipulate and agree that Defendants may have a 30-

21

day extension of time, from May 9, 2022 to June 8, 2022, to respond to Plaintiff’s Petition

22

for Writ of Mandamus and Complaint for Declaratory Relief. (ECF No. 3).

23

This is a mandamus and Administrative Procedure Act action to compel USCIS to

24

adjudicate Plaintiff’s U-Visa petition and “application for advance permission to enter as a

25

nonimmigrant.” (ECF No. 3 p.2). An extension is warranted for four reasons. First, the

26

agency recently issued Plaintiff a request for evidence (“RFE”) and Plaintiff expects to

27

respond to that RFE in two weeks. A 30-day extension would give Plaintiff time to respond

28
1

Case 2:21-cv-02204-ART-VCF Document 13 Filed 05/10/22 Page 2 of 2

1

and the agency time to address that response, thereby possibly mooting the case. Second,

2

defense counsel’s office has lost a number of attorneys and staff. As a result, defense counsel

3

is handling a higher-than-normal caseload. Third, only a limited number of attorneys and

4

support staff may work in defense counsel’s office at any given time due to the pandemic,

5

thereby slowing the time it takes to process and complete required tasks. Fourth, defense

6

counsel’s calendar has been busier than normal with multiple filing deadlines in several

7

cases, including one before the Ninth Circuit. Under the circumstances, good cause exists

8

to extend the deadline for Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s Petition for Writ of

9

Mandamus and Complaint for Declaratory Relief . See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A) (“When

10

an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the

11

time…with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before the

12

original time or its extension expires[.]”) (emphasis added).

13

This is Defendants’ first request for an extension of time. See LR IA 6-1(a) (must

14

advise of previous extensions). Defense counsel contacted Plaintiff’s counsel regarding this

15

extension request, and he has advised that he does not oppose the request. This stipulation

16

is made in good faith and not for the purpose of undue delay.

17
18

DATED: May 9, 2022
Bolour/Carl Immigration Group, APC

CHRISTOPHER CHIOU
Acting United States Attorney

/s/ Scott A. Emerick
SCOTT A. EMERICK
Attorney for Plaintiff

/s/ Holly A. Vance
HOLLY A. VANCE
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Attorney for Defendants

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 10 , 2022.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28
2