Shaiban et al v. Cissna et al

Filing 13

ORDER deferring ruling on 7 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; deferring ruling on 7 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. The Court hereby STAYS this matter pending the USCISs final adjudication of Plaintiffs I-485 adjustment applications. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 8/1/18. (clc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. 3:18-cv-00153-FDW-DCK
SALEH SHAIBAN; FATIMA
MUTHANA; ASEEL SHAIBAN; TAHANI
SHAIBAN; SAEED SHAIBAN; AMIN
SHAIBAN; and AKRAM SHAIBAN,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, Secretary of
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY; DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY; LEE CISSNA,
Director of, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION SERVICES;
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or, in the
Alternative, to Stay (Doc. No. 7). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) Defendants
request dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim; in the
alternative, Defendants request the Court stay this action pending United States Citizenship and
Immigration Services’ (“USCIS”) final adjudication of Plaintiffs’ I-485 adjustment applications.
Plaintiffs have responded in opposition (Doc. No. 11), and this matter is now ripe for disposition.
Defendants’ motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to stay (Doc. No. 7) is DEFERRED IN PART
and GRANTED IN PART. For the reasons stated below, the Court hereby STAYS this matter
pending the final adjudication of Plaintiffs’ adjustment applications.
I. BACKGROUND

1

This action arises out of Defendants’ alleged failure to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ I-485
adjustment applications within a reasonable time. See (Doc. No. 1).
According to the Complaint, Plaintiffs immigrated from Yemen to the United States
seeking asylum and permanent residency. In December of 2006, Mr. Saleh Shaiban was granted
asylum in the United States by Immigration Judge Patricia Rohan. Id. at 4. Nearly two years later,
on or about November 26, 2008, Mr. Shaiban submitted a I-485 Application to Register Permanent
Resident or Adjust Status to the USCIS. Id. In 2014, Mr. Shaiban’s wife, Fatima Muthana, and
children, Saeed Shaiban, Saleh Shaban, Akram Shaiban, Amin Shaiban, Tahani Shaiban, and
Aseel Shaiban were granted derivative asylee status and admitted to the United States. Id. Between
May and July of 2016, Mr. Shaiban’s wife and children submitted their respective I-485
applications to the USCIS. Id. at 4-6. To date, Defendants have not completed a full adjudication
of any plaintiff’s application. Id.
After purportedly exhausting all administrative options for relief, Plaintiffs filed suit in this
Court on March 26, 2018, seeking a writ of mandamus and declaratory and injunctive relief. On
May 29, 2018, the USCIS issued Requests for Evidence (“RFEs”) to all Plaintiffs regarding their
I-485 applications. (Doc. No. 11, p. 10). Plaintiffs responded to the RFEs on June 25, 2018. Id.
Defendants’ filed their motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to stay (Doc. No. 7) on June 28,
2018.
II. ANALYSIS
While Plaintiffs oppose a stay, they provide no specific argument against staying the case
nor do they provide authority indicating a stay is inappropriate. See (Doc. No. 11, p. 15).
Defendants, on the other hand, convincingly argue a stay of this matter “serves the twin purposes
2

of protecting administrative agency authority and promoting judicial efficiency.” Dexter v.
Huerta, No. 1:12CV1147, 2013 WL 5355748, at 2 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 24, 2013).
The Court recognizes that Mr. Saleh Shaiban submitted his adjustment application over
eight years ago and that the remaining Plaintiffs have also waited over two years for adjudication
of their applications. However, Defendants have recently issued RFEs to Plaintiffs, and it has now
been only one month since Plaintiffs responded to those RFEs. Given these recent developments,
the Court determines it would be more efficient to allow the USCIS to operate without judicial
intervention at this time. Accordingly, the Court determines a stay of this matter pending final
adjudication of Plaintiffs’ adjustment applications is appropriate.
III. CONCLUSION
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss or, in the alternative,
to stay (Doc. No. 7) is DEFERRED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART.

The Court hereby

STAYS this matter pending the USCIS’s final adjudication of Plaintiffs’ I-485 adjustment
applications.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: August 1, 2018

3