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)

Download PDF
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 (775) 784-5438 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

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?