Ceridor v. Mayorkas et al

Filing 11

ORDER: granting 10 Letter Motion to Stay re: 10 JOINT LETTER MOTION to Stay this matter for ninety days (i.e. from May 13, 2022 to August 11, 2022). addressed to Judge Valerie E. Caproni from SAUSA Jacqueline Roman dated 05/06/2022.JOINT LETTER MOTION to Adjourn Conference until after the stay period. addressed to Judge Valerie E. Caproni from SAUSA Jacqueline Roman dated 05/06/2022. Application GRANTED. This case is hereby STAYED until Thursday, August 4, 2022. The Initial Pre-Tri al Conference currently scheduled for May 27, 2022, at 10:30 a.m. is hereby ADJOURNED until August 19, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. Pre-conference submissions as described in the Court's order at Docket 6 are due not later than August 11, 2022. SO ORDERED.( Initial Conference set for 8/19/2022 at 10:00 AM before Judge Valerie E. Caproni.). (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 5/06/2022) (ama)

Case 1:22-cv-01605-VEC Document 10 Filed 05/06/22 Page 1 of 2
11
3
U.S. Department of Justice
[Type text]
United States Attorney
Southern District of New York

MEMO ENDORSED
MO
VIA ECF
Hon. Valerie E. Caproni
United States District Judge
United States District Court
40 Foley Square
New York, New York 10007
Re:

86 Chambers Street
New York, New York 10007

May 6, 2022

USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:
DATE FILED:

Samnel Ceridor v. Mayorkas, et al., No. 22 Civ. 1605 (VEC)

Dear Judge Caproni:
This Office represents the government in this action in which the plaintiff seeks an order
compelling U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to adjudicate an Application to
Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (Form I-485). I write respectfully on behalf of all
parties to jointly request that the Court stay this matter for ninety days (i.e., from May 13, 2022,
to August 11, 2022) and that the initial conference presently scheduled for May 27, 2022, be
adjourned until after the stay period. 1
The parties respectfully request that the Court stay this matter because the plaintiff is
subject to a removal order but has been accorded Temporary Protected Status (“TPS”). A central
issue in this case is the legal effect of the plaintiff’s travel and return to the United States pursuant
to a grant of advance parole and whether USCIS has jurisdiction to adjudicate the Form I-485.
Under the government’s current interpretation of 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(f)(3) and section 304(c) of the
Miscellaneous and Technical Immigration and Naturalization Amendments of 1991 (“MTINA”),
such travel by an individual with TPS does not execute a removal order, and thus, the plaintiff
remains in the status he had before he travelled—i.e., a noncitizen with a removal order. It is the
government’s current position that, in these circumstances, the immigration judge has exclusive
jurisdiction over whether the plaintiff can adjust status, and therefore, USCIS cannot adjudicate a
Form I-485. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1240.1(a)(1)(ii), 1245.2(a)(1)(i) (granting “exclusive jurisdiction” to
the immigration court following commencement of removal proceedings when a noncitizen is not
an “arriving alien,” i.e., an applicant for admission at a port of entry).
However, the parties believe that there may be a way in which they could potentially
resolve this matter without the need for motion practice or judicial intervention. The plaintiff may
be able to seek termination of his removal proceedings by asking the Office of the Principal Legal
Advisor (“OPLA”) of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) to join in a motion to
reopen his removal proceedings and to terminate the removal order. See Central American
Resource Center, et al., v. Jaddou, 20 Civ. 02363 (D.D.C. Mar. 21, 2022), ECF No. 68 (stipulation
of settlement and dismissal in which ICE OPLA agreed through January 2025 that unless an
individual is an enforcement priority, to generally exercise its prosecutorial discretion by joining
1

On April 25, 2022, the government requested that the Court adjourn the initial conference until
sometime after the government’s response to the complaint was due. See ECF No. 8. On April
26, 2022, the Court granted this request. See ECF No. 9. I apologize for not requesting the stay,
instead of an adjournment, on April 25. I had not realized at that time that a stay would be a better
course for this matter.

Case 1:22-cv-01605-VEC Document 10 Filed 05/06/22 Page 2 of 2
11
3
Page 2
a motion to reopen and moving to dismiss removal proceedings for individuals who possess TPS
status, have a removal order, have traveled using advanced parole after the removal order was
issued, and are otherwise prima facie eligible for adjustment of status);
https://www.uscis.gov/laws-and-policy/other-resources/class-action-settlement-notices-andagreements/certain-temporary-protected-status-tps-recipients-with-orders-of-removal-ordeportation-seeking (last accessed May 6, 2022). Should the plaintiff’s removal proceedings be
terminated pursuant to the above process, USCIS could then resume adjudication of the Form I485. See id.
The parties respectfully submit that it is in the interest of efficiency and conservation of
resources for the Court to stay this case for ninety days to allow the plaintiff to pursue this process.
“The power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the
disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and
for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). Here, while the parties attempt to
resolve this matter through this alternative process, it would be prudent to hold this action in
abeyance to avoid unnecessary motion practice and thus preserve judicial and party resources,
particularly where the conclusion may render this action moot. See, e.g., Fareportal Inc. v.
Travana, Inc., Nos. 16 Civ. 9882 (ALC), 17 Civ. 968 (ALC), 2017 WL 11512550, at *2 (S.D.N.Y.
Sept. 25, 2017) (“The outcome of that expert’s analysis may eliminate Fareportal’s claims here, or
at least significantly reduce the scope of the actions pending before this Court. Given this potential
efficiency, the Court will stay this action under its inherent authority to manage its own docket in
an efficient manner.”).
We thank the Court for its consideration of this request.
Respectfully submitted,
DAMIAN WILLIAMS
United States Attorney
By:

cc: Counsel of record (via ECF)

s/ Jacqueline Roman
JACQUELINE ROMAN
Special Assistant United States Attorney
86 Chambers Street, 3rd Floor
New York, New York 10007
Telephone: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorney for Defendants

Case 1:22-cv-01605-VEC Document 11 Filed 05/06/22 Page 3 of 3

SO ORDERED.

HON. VALERIE CAPRONI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE