Francois v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Sabina Carol Francois, No. CV-21-00071-PHX-JAT

10 Petitioner, ORDER

11 v.

12 United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, et al., 13 Respondents. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion to Reopen Case and Lift Stay. (Doc. 16 39). Petitioner argued that the immigration judge (Judge Cottor) closed Petitioner’s 17 immigration proceeding specifically to allow this case to proceed. (Id. (quoting Judge 18 Cottor’s April 18, 2024 order (Doc. 39 at 5)). Respondents did not timely respond to the 19 motion. 20 However, Respondents did thereafter file a status report indicating that Judge Cottor 21 had reopened the immigration proceedings for adjudication. (Doc. 40). Judge Cottor’s 22 June 4, 2024 order (Doc. 40-1) makes no reference to her April 18, 2024 Order. 23 Petitioner then filed a status report in response to Respondents’ status report. (Doc. 24 41). Petitioner indicates in her status report that she has moved Judge Cottor to reconsider 25 her June 4, 2024 order reopening Petitioner’s immigration proceedings. (Doc. 41-4). 26 Petitioner urges Judge Cottor to follow her April 18, 2024 order and allow this case to 27 proceed first. 28 This Court has previously explained: 1 Under Ninth Circuit precedent this Court has “jurisdiction pursuant to 2 1421(c) to review [USCIS’s] denial of [Plaintiffs] application for naturalization whether or not a removal proceeding is pending, but that 3 review is limited to ‘such’ denial.” Bellajaro, 378 F.3d at 1047. But to decide 4 on the validity of Francois’ application would effectively end her removal proceedings. See, e.g., Omo v. Barrett, No. C 11-04975 CRB, 2012 U.S. Dist. 5 LEXIS 20921 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2012) (declining to proceed with the case 6 because a finding on their part would directly affect the removal proceedings). Such a result is “contrary to congressional intent to end the 7 race between two processes.” Gardener, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32866, at g *15—16. As the Seventh Circuit explained, “[t]he existence of overlapping proceedings does not diminish a district court’s power but does present a 9 question on which the judge should exercise sound discretion.” Klene v. Napolitano, 697 F.3d 666, 669 (7th Cir. 2012). As a result, the Court finds 10 the prudent course of action is to stay this case pending the outcome of 11 removal proceedings. Adesida, 2021 U.S. Dist. Lexis 79436, at *10. || (Doc. 21 at7). Because Petitioner’s removal proceedings are currently open for || adjudication, this Court will continue to stay this case pending the outcome of removal || Proceedings. 15 Thus, 16 IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Reopen Case and Lift Stay, (Doc. 17|| 39), is DENIED without prejudice. 18 Dated this 25th day of June, 2024. 19 20 ' 21 - James A. Teilborg 22 Senior United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-