Dhunna v. Department of Homeland Security

Opinion

The Honorable Barbara J. Rothstein

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

PAWANDEEP DHUNNA, ) No.: 2:21-cv-00720-BJR ) Plaintiff, ) STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER TO ) CONTINUE DEADLINES vs. ) ) SECURITY, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) Plaintiff Pawandeep Dhunna and Defendants the Department of Homeland Security, et al., through their respective counsel, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6 and Local Rules 10(g) and 16, and hereby jointly stipulate and move for a 90-day extension of (1) the deadline for Defendants to respond to the Complaint, and (2) the deadlines in the Court’s order (Dkt. #8) that sets dates for the exchange of Initial Disclosures and filing a Combined Joint Status Report and Discovery Plan. A court may modify a deadline for good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). Continuing pretrial and trial dates is within the discretion of the trial judge. See King v. State of California, 784 F.2d 910, 912 (9th Cir. 1986). The parties submit there is good cause for an extension of the deadlines as there was when the parties submitted their first stipulated request for an extension of the deadlines in August 2021 (Dkt. #7). As the parties explained then, statutory authorization related to the EB-5 regional center program (the program under which the plaintiff filed an I-526 petition) expired at the end of the day on June 30, 2021. The lapse continues. Due to this lapse in authorization, in general, U.S.

Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) will not act on any pending Form I-526 petition that is dependent on the lapsed statutory authority until further notice. See https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/permanent-workers/eb-5-immigrant- investor-program (second alert). In addition, “[a]lthough USCIS is unable to review [the plaintiff’s Request for Evidence] response at this time, [USCIS] will . . . maintain the response for review if circumstances change.” A 90-day extension will give the parties time to monitor whether Congress will renew the statutory authorization related to the regional center program and to assess the impact of such reauthorization (or lack thereof) on this litigation. Continuing the existing deadlines for a responsive pleading, initial disclosures, and a joint status report will allow the parties to conserve resources because they will not have to expend resources completing work on

the case that may become moot (or the issues may change) depending on whether Congress renews the statutory authorization related to the program. Therefore, the parties agree to and propose new deadlines as follows: Action Deadline Defendants’ responsive pleading February 7, 2022 Rule 26(f) Conference January 25, 2022 Exchange initial disclosures February 1, 2022 File Joint Status Report February 8, 2022

// DATED: October 25, 2021 s/ Gabrielle D. Schneck Gabrielle D. Schneck Millar & Hayes, PC 2633 Eastlake Avenue E., Suite 300 Seattle, WA Phone: 206.262.0561 gabrielle@usborderlaw.com Attorney for Plaintiff

DATED: October 25, 2021 NICHOLAS W. BROWN United States Attorney s/ Sarah K. Morehead SARAH K. MOREHEAD, WSBA #29680 Assistant United States Attorney United States Attorney’s Office 700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220 Seattle, WA 98101-1271 Phone: (206) 553-7970 Email: sarah.morehead@usdoj.gov Attorney for Defendants

] ORDER DATED this 2nd day of November, 2021. frtne Lloebirriar BARBARA J. ROTHSTEIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE STIPULATED MOTION UNITED STATES ATTORNEY AND ORDER 700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220 9-91-cv-00720-BJIR SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98101