Melo v. Jaddou

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: September 22, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01030
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 SUInGitAedL SCtaHteAs TATttAoHrn ey 2 District of Nevada Nevada Bar No. 8264 3 CHRISTIAN R. RUIZ Assistant United States Attorney 4 501 Las Vegas Blvd. So., Suite 1100 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 5 Phone: (702) 388-6336 Fax: (702) 388-6787 6 Christian.Ruiz@usdoj.gov

7 Attorneys for the Federal Defendants

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10 Alberto Mpiana Da Mesquita E Melo, Case No. 2:24-cv-01030-JAD-EJY

11 Plaintiff, Status Report and Joint Stipulation to Stay the Proceedings (Ninth Request) 12 v.

13 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), et al., 14 Defendant. 15 16 Plaintiff Alberto Mpiana Da Mesquita E Melo (“Plaintiff” or “Melo”) and 17 Defendants, through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and jointly request that the 18 Court stay all deadlines in this matter and hold this case in abeyance for an additional 19 period of 90 days, or until December 16, 2025. This is the parties’ ninth stipulation to stay 20 the proceedings. The parties submit this request in good faith and not for purposes of delay 21 or any other improper purpose. 22 Since the Court granted Defendants’ last request for an extension of time, the 23 Defendants issued a Notice of Intent to Deny (“NOID”) and subsequently issued a 24 decision denying Plaintiff’s administrative applications, thus concluding the administrative 25 process. However, the parties agreed to reopen Plaintiff’s administrative proceedings for 26 the reasons stated in the following memorandum, and thus the parties request a 90-day stay 27 to allow the administrative process to conclude once more. 28 1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities 2 I. Procedural Background 3 On or about June 2, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Complaint requesting that the Court 4 compel USCIS to adjudicate and grant Plaintiff’s Form I-485, Application to Adjust Status, 5 and Form I-601, Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility. ECF No. 1, at 2, 6 26. In the interest of judicial economy, the parties later entered into a series of stipulations 7 to stay the Court proceedings from September 9, 2024, through June 19, 2025. ECF Nos. 8 16–32. 9 On June 25, 2025, Defendants filed a motion requesting that the due date for 10 Defendants’ response be extended from June 19, 2025, up to and including September 17, 11 2025, to allow USCIS to complete the administrative process that forms the basis for the 12 case at bar. ECF No. 33. The Court granted the motion. ECF No. 34. 13 II. Case Status and Discussion 14 Courts have inherent authority to manage their own dockets. Hamilton Copper & Steel 15 Corp. v. Primary Steel, Inc., 898 F.2d 1428, 1429 (9th Cir. 1990); Oliva v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 16 272, 273 (9th Cir. 1992). 17 Good cause exists for granting the requested stay in this case. As the parties jointly 18 reported, Defendants previously granted Plaintiff’s I-601 application. ECF No. 25. Thus, as 19 of the date of Defendants’ last motion to extend the due date for a response (ECF No. 33), 20 Plaintiff’s I-485 application constituted the final remaining milestone in the administrative 21 process. Id. 22 Since the Court granted Defendants’ motion, USCIS issued and mailed a Notice of 23 Intent to Deny (“NOID”) and subsequently issued and mailed a decision denying 24 Plaintiff’s administrative application, thus concluding the administrative process. In 25 addition, undersigned counsel issued timely notices, via email, to counsel for Plaintiff 26 regarding the issuance of the NOID and denial. 27 After Defendants issued the denial, however, counsel for Plaintiff asserted that he 28 was not properly served with the NOID and denial because he had moved to a new 1 address. In response, Defendants conducted a diligent review regarding the notice issue 2 raised by counsel for Plaintiff. They determined that the NOID and denial were properly 3 mailed to the last address that USCIS had on file for counsel for Plaintiff, as reflected in 4 USCIS’s records. Defendants maintain that Plaintiff's counsel bears the responsibility for 5 ensuring their address with USCIS is current 6 Even so, the parties conferred regarding the notice issue and agreed to reopen the 7 administrative process to allow Plaintiff to respond to any issues the Defendants identified 8 with his I-485 application. After USCIS reopens the administrative proceedings, USCIS 9 intends to provide Plaintiff with about 30 days to submit legal arguments and/or evidence 10 necessary to address issues identified in a newly issued NOID. The parties submit that a 90- 11 day stay would allow the parties to reopen Plaintiff’s I-485 application, submit any 12 supplemental arguments and evidence for the administrative proceedings, and adjudicate 13 Plaintiff’s I-485 application. 14 / / 15 / / 16 / / 17 / / 18 / / 19 / / 20 / / 21 / / 22 / / 23 / / 24 / / 25 / / 26 / / 27 / / 28 / / 1 I. Conclusion 2 Having shown that good cause exists, the parties respectfully requests that the Court 3 || hold this case in abeyance for an additional period of 90 days, or until December 16, 2025. 4 Respectfully submitted this 18th day of September 2025. 5 SULL & ASSOCIATES, PLLC. SIGAL CHATTAH 6 United States Attorney /s/ Hardeep Sull /s/ Christian R. Ruiz HARDEEP SULL CHRISTIAN R. RUIZ 8|! 3753 Howard Hughes Parkway, Assistant United States Attorney Suite 200 Attorneys for the Federal Defendants 9|| Las Vegas, Nevada 89169 (702) 953-9500 10|| dee@sullglobal.com 11 D THE BROOKS LAW FIRM, APC /s/ Carlo Brooks 13|| CARLO BROOKS Pro hac vice 14)| 3826 Grand View Blvd., Suite 661472 Los Angeles, CA 90066 (310) 691-9373 carlo@carlobrooks.com 17|| Attorneys for Plaintiff 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED: 20 21 23 Unit lates Dis it jude 24 25 DATED: 9/22/2025 26 27 28