ELFEKY v. JOHNSON et al
Filing
35
ORDER THAT PLAINTIFFS CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS DENIED; DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND PARTIAL DISMISSAL IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, AS FOLLOWS: THAT PART OF DEFENDANTS MOTION THAT SEEKS DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFFS CHALL ENGES TO THE AUGUST 26, 2010 REVOCATION OF THE UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICESS (USCIS) APPROVAL OF THE I-360 APPLICATION AND THE APRIL 10, 2015 DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFFS I-290B MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF USCISS DECISION TO REVOKE THE I-360 APPROVAL, FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION, IS GRANTED, AND SUCH CLAIMS ARE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; THAT PART OF DEFENDANTS MOTION THAT SEEKS DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFFS CHALLENGE TO THE FEBRUARY 16, 2016 DENIAL OF THE I-602 APPLICAT ION SEEKING WAIVER OF INADMISSIBILITY, FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION, IS DENIED; THAT PART OF DEFENDANTS MOTION THAT SEEKS THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AS TO PLAINTIFFS CHALLENGES TO THE FEBRUARY 17, 2016 DENIAL OF THE I-485 APPLICATION TO ADJUST STATUS AND THE FEBRUARY 16, 2016 DENIAL OF THE I-602 APPLICATION REQUESTING WAIVER OF INADMISSIBILITY IS GRANTED, AND JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS AND AGAINST PLAINTIFF ON SUCH CLAIMS, ETC. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAN E. DUBOIS ON 2/3/17. 2/7/17 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED. (va, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
OSAMA “SAM” ELFEKY,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL ACTION
v.
JEH JOHNSON, Secretary, United States
Department of Homeland Security,
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General of
the United States,
LEON RODRIGUEZ, Director, United
States Citizenship and Immigration
Services,
EVANGELIA KLAPAKIS , Director,
Philadelphia Field Office, United States
Citizenship and Immigration Services,
LAURA B. ZUCHOWSKI, Director,
Vermont Service Center, United States
Citizenship and Immigration Services, and
UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION SERVICES,
Defendants.
NO. 15-3442
ORDER
AND NOW, this 3rd day of February, 2017, upon consideration of Defendants’ Motion
for Summary Judgment and Partial Dismissal (Doc. No. 26, filed Aug. 15, 2016), Plaintiff’s
Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 30-2, filed Oct. 17, 2016), Plaintiff’s
Memorandum of Law in Response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Partial
Dismissal and in Support of Plaintiff’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 30, filed
Oct. 17, 2016), and Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment
(Doc. No. 33, filed November 28, 2016), for the reasons set forth in the accompanying
Memorandum dated February 3, 2017, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1.
Plaintiff’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED;
1
2.
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Partial Dismissal is GRANTED
IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as follows:
a.
That part of Defendants’ Motion that seeks dismissal of plaintiff’s
challenges to the August 26, 2010 revocation of the United States Citizenship and Immigration
Services’s (“USCIS”) approval of the I-360 application and the April 10, 2015 dismissal of
plaintiff’s I-290B motion for reconsideration of USCIS’s decision to revoke the I-360 approval,
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, is GRANTED, and such claims are DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE;
b.
That part of Defendants’ Motion that seeks dismissal of plaintiff’s
challenge to the February 16, 2016 denial of the I-602 application seeking waiver of
inadmissibility, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, is DENIED;
c.
That part of Defendants’ Motion that seeks the entry of judgment as to
plaintiff’s challenges to the February 17, 2016 denial of the I-485 application to adjust status and
the February 16, 2016 denial of the I-602 application requesting waiver of inadmissibility is
GRANTED, and JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR of defendants and AGAINST
plaintiff on such claims;
3.
The Clerk of Court shall mark this case CLOSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Hon. Jan E. DuBois
DuBOIS, JAN E., J.
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?