Al Pato v. Barr ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NAHRAIN AL PATO, et al., No. 1:20-cv-00973-NONE-EPG 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER STAYING CASE FOR 60 DAYS 14 WILLIAM BARR, in his official capacity (Doc. No. 11) as Attorney General of the United States, et 15 al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 This is an immigration matter in which plaintiffs challenge an alleged delay in the 19 adjudication of a Refugee Relative Petition (“Form I-730”) by the United States Citizenship and 20 Immigration Services (“USCIS”). In sum, plaintiff Nahrain Al Pato, a native of Iraq, fled to 21 Turkey in 2014 with her three young children. (Doc. No. 1 at ¶ 2.) In 2016, plaintiff Al Pato and 22 her children were granted approval for refugee status and entered the United States. (Id. at ¶ 3.) 23 Although plaintiff Al Pato timely filed the Form I-730 to permit her husband, plaintiff Yokhanna 24 Khames, to join her and their children in the United States, it has now been more than three years 25 since the Form I-730 was filed with USCIS. (Id. at ¶ 4.) Plaintiffs allege in their complaint that 26 they have provided all necessary documentation for USCIS to adjudicate the Form I-730. (Id.) 27 On November 30, 2020, the government moved to stay all proceedings in this matter for 28 six months. (Doc. No. 11.) The government offers as justifications for its requested stay the 1 following facts and arguments: (1) the government must interview plaintiff Khames to proceed 2 with processing the Form I-730; (2) because plaintiff Khames resides overseas, the interview 3 must be conducted by the U.S. Department of State, not USCIS; (3) the most obvious place for 4 the interview to be conducted is at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, Iraq, the city of residence for 5 plaintiff Khames, but that location is presently closed due to previous unrest; and (4) other posts 6 in the region are experiencing limited access due to COVID-19 and security concerns. (See Doc. 7 Nos. 11, 11-1.) USCIS asserts that it will require additional time to identify an appropriate 8 location and date to interview plaintiff Khames. (Doc. No. 11-1 at ¶ 13.) Plaintiffs oppose the 9 government’s motion to stay this matter for six months (Doc. No. 12), but apparently do not 10 oppose a stay of one month (see Doc. No. 11 at 4). 11 Having reviewed the pending motion to stay and plaintiffs’ opposition in light of the 12 entire record, the court finds good cause for imposition of a brief stay. The declaration of David 13 Radel, director of the USCIS’ Los Angeles-based asylum office, explains the need for an 14 interview of plaintiff Khames and the reasons why finding a suitable location at which to conduct 15 that interview are challenging. However, the Radel declaration provides insufficient detail to 16 support government counsel’s assertion that scheduling an interview of plaintiff Khames is 17 “impossibl[e]” at this time. (Compare Doc. Nos. 11 at 3, with 11-1 at ¶ 13.) Balancing the 18 government’s asserted need for the interview and the present difficulty it has encountered in 19 scheduling that interview against the ongoing harm to plaintiffs, a married couple with young 20 children who claim they are separated due to defendants’ allegedly unlawful conduct, the court 21 concludes that a sixty-day stay is reasonable under the circumstances. See Lockyer v. Mirant 22 Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005) (instructing courts to consider the competing interests 23 at stake in deciding whether to stay a case). 24 ///// 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 Therefore, this case shall be stayed for sixty days from the date of entry of this order. Ten 2 | days prior to the expiration of the stay, defendants shall file a status report indicating the specific 3 || steps that have been taken to schedule and/or conduct the requisite interview of plaintiff Khames. 4 | Only with that information in hand will the court even consider extending the stay imposed by 5 | this order. 6 | IT IS SO ORDERED. si am 7 Li. wh F Dated: _ January 13, 2021 Sea 1" S098 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28