Al-Kaissey v. Radel

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: April 11, 2023
• Docket: 3:22-cv-01772
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 QUSSAY ABDULRAZZAK Case No. 22-cv-1772-BAS-MDD AL-KAISSEY, 12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO 14 ALEJANDRO N. MAYORKAS, STAY (ECF No. 9); 15 Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al., (2) DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILE 16 Defendants. JOINT STATUS REPORT; AND 17 (3) TERMINATING MOTION TO 18 DISMISS (ECF No. 5) 19 20 21 Now before this Court is the parties’ joint motion to stay proceedings to allow the 22 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to complete adjudication of Plaintiff 23 Qussay Abdulrazzak Al-Kaissey (“Plaintiff”)’s Form I-589 Application for Asylum (“I- 24 589 Application”). (Joint Mot. to Stay at 1:23–26 (“Joint Mot.”), ECF No. 9.) For the 25 reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion (ECF No. 9), STAYS this 26 action in its entirety, and TERMINATES without prejudice to renewal Defendants’ 27 pending motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Mot. to Dismiss, ECF 28 No. 5). 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 Plaintiff, his wife, and his two minor children are natives and citizens of Iraq. (Pet. 3 ¶ 5, ECF No. 1.) On August 14, 2015, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security 4 inspected and admitted to the United States Plaintiff and his family as B-2 visitors, which 5 authorized them to remain in the United States for a period of six months. . (Id. ¶ 5.) On 6 February 9, 2016, just prior to the expiration of his B-2 status, Plaintiff filed Form I-589 7 Application on behalf of himself and each of his family members, indicating that he feared 8 returning to Iraq because of, inter alia, his religious beliefs and political opinions. (Id. ¶ 9 6.) Plaintiff fully submitted his I-589 Application when he participated in a background 10 check on February 16, 2016, which he alleges he passed. (Id. ¶ 7.) 11 Plaintiff and his family members’ I-589 Application remained pending for years. 12 (See Pet. ¶¶ 8–10.) Through counsel, Plaintiff sent the USCIS’ Los Angeles Asylum 13 Office (“ZLA”) several letters in 2017 and 2020, in which he sought to secure and expedite 14 an asylum interview with USCIS on the basis that both he and his minor child suffered 15 from mental and physical ailments, respectively, and, thus, would suffer “extreme 16 hardship” from any further delay in the adjudicative process. (Id. ¶ 10.) In all instances, 17 ZLA denied the requests or asked for more time to consider. (Id. ¶ 10.) 18 Having waited nearly seven years to no avail for USCIS to process his I-589 19 Application, Plaintiff filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus on November 11, 2022, 20 alleging that Defendants’ inaction amounts to the “unlawful withholding” and/or 21 “unreasonable delay” of Defendants’ non-discretionary administrative and adjudicative 22 functions and duties under 8 U.S.C. § 1158 et seq., in violation of the Administrative 23 Procedures Act. (Pet. ¶ 25.) By this action, Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendants to 24 adjudicate his I-589 Application. (Id.) 25 Approximately one month after this action commenced, USCIS scheduled Plaintiff 26 for an asylum interview. (Notice of Interview, Ex. A to Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 5-1.) 27 Shortly thereafter, Defendants moved to dismiss the Petition pursuant to Federal Rule of 28 Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(1), contending, inter alia, the scheduled interview moots 1 Plaintiff’s claims. (Mot. to Dismiss at 3:5–9.) It is undisputed Plaintiff’s asylum interview 2 proceeded as scheduled on January 5, 2023. (Joint Mot. at 1:23–26.) 3 On April 3, 2023, the parties jointly moved to stay this proceeding while USCIS 4 adjudicates Plaintiff’s I-589 Application, following Plaintiff’s asylum interview. (Id.) 5 USCIS estimates it will complete adjudication by approximately May 9, 2023. The parties 6 agree that if USCIS does not complete its adjudication by May 9, 2023, the parties will file 7 a joint status report on May 12, 2023, and that if the USCIS does complete adjudication 8 within that same period, Plaintiff will voluntarily dismiss the case. (Id. at 2:1–3.) 9 II. LEGAL STANDARD 10 “A district court has discretionary power to stay proceedings in its own court.” 11 Lockyer v. Mirant, 398 F.3d 1098, 1109 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 12 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent 13 in every court to control disposition of the cases on its docket with economy of time and 14 effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 254. 15 In determining whether a stay is appropriate, a federal court considers the (1) 16 “possibility damage may result from the granting of a stay,” (2) “hardship or inequity which 17 a party may suffer in being required to go forward,” and (3) “orderly course of justice 18 measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law 19 which could be expected to result from a stay.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 20 (9th Cir. 1962) (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 254–55). “The proponent of a stay bears the 21 burden of establishing its need.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 708 (1997) (citing Landis, 22 299 U.S. at 255.) 23 III. ANALYSIS 24 This case arises out of Defendants’ alleged failure to adjudicate Plaintiff’s pending 25 I-589 Application. However, Defendants aver—and Plaintiff concedes—that, since 26 Plaintiff commenced this action, USCIS has moved forward with processing that 27 Application. Specifically, USCIS interviewed Plaintiff on January 5, 2023, and avers that 28 it is in the midst of adjudicating whether Plaintiff and his family qualify for asylum based 1 Plaintiff's I-589 Application and asylum interview. USCIS anticipates it will complete 2 adjudication by no later than May 9, 2023. 3 The parties do not identify what damage, hardship, or inequity would result from 4 || granting a stay to confer USCIS time to adjudicate the Plaintiff's pending I-589 Application 5 May 9, 2023, approximately 120 days following plaintiff's asylum interview. Nor is 6 ||any such damage, hardship, or inequity apparent to this Court. In fact, the parties all 7 || contend a stay is necessary to avoid superfluous and burdensome expenses and to prevent 8 || waste of judicial resources. (See Joint Mot. at 1:26—28.) This Court agrees. A stay here 9 || would protect the parties from expending any further resources or costs towards protracted 10 litigation in this proceeding, which may well be resolved out-of-court by USCIS in 11 approximately one month. Moreover, a stay would authorize this Court to hold in abeyance 12 decision on Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(1) motion, which a USCIS adjudicative 13 || determination would render needless, thereby conserving this Court’s own resources. 14 Accordingly, this Court finds the parties’ proposed stay is warranted and, therefore, 15 || GRANTS the Joint Motion. (ECF No. 9.) 16 CONCLUSION 17 For the reasons set forth above: 18 1. The Court GRANTS the Joint Motion and STAYS this action. (ECF No. 9.) 19 2. The Court TERMINATES Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion without 20 prejudice to renewal and VACATKES all deadlines until further order of the 21 Court. (ECF No. 5). 22 3. The Court ORDERS the parties to jointly file a report reflecting the status of 23 USCIS's adjudication of Plaintiff's I-589 Application by no later than May 24 12, 2023. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 || DATED: April 11, 2023 ( yi A A (Hiphan 6 27 United States District Judge 28 _A.