Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01541/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01541-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Parties’ Request to Exempt from ADR Process

C 07-1541 SC

SCOTT N. SCHOOLS, SC SBN 9990

United States Attorney

JOANN M. SWANSON, CSBN 88143

Assistant United States Attorney

Chief, Civil Division

ILA C. DEISS, NY SBN 3052909

Assistant United States Attorney

450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055

San Francisco, California 94102

Telephone: (415) 436-7124

FAX: (415) 436-7169

Attorneys for Respondents

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

HSUEH YUNG FENG, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary, United States )

Department of Homeland Security; )

EMILIO GONZALEZ, Director, United States )

Citizenship and Immigration Services; )

GERARD HEINAUER, Director, )

Nebraska Service Center, United States )

Citizenship and Immigration Services; )

DAVID N. STILL, District Director, )

San Francisco District Office, United States )

Citizenship and Immigration Services; )

EMILIA BARDINI, Director, San Francisco )

Asylum Office, United States Citizenship and )

Immigration Services; )

)

Respondents. )

 )

No. C 07-1541 SC

PARTIES’ JOINT REQUEST TO BE

EXEMPT FROM FORMAL ADR

PROCESS

Each of the undersigned certifies that he or she has read either the handbook entitled “Dispute

Resolution Procedures in the Northern District of California,” or the specified portions of the ADR

Unit’s Internet site <www.adr.cand.uscourts.gov>, discussed the available dispute resolution

options provided by the court and private entities, and considered whether this case might benefit

Case 3:07-cv-01541-SC Document 12 Filed 11/15/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Parties’ Request to Exempt from ADR Process

C 07-1541 SC

from any of them. 

Here, the parties agree that referral to a formal ADR process will not be beneficial because this

mandamus action is limited to petitioner’s request that this Court compel respondents to

adjudicate the asylee relative petition. Given the substance of the action and the lack of any

potential middle ground, ADR will only serve to multiply the proceedings and unnecessarily tax

court resources. Accordingly, pursuant to ADR L.R. 3-3(c), the parties request the case be

removed from the ADR Multi-Option Program and that they be excused from participating in the

ADR phone conference and any further formal ADR process.

Dated: November 8, 2007 Respectfully submitted,

SCOTT N. SCHOOLS

United States Attorney

 /s/ 

ILA C. DEISS

Assistant United States Attorney

Attorney for Respondents

Dated: November 8, 2007 /s/ 

MICHAEL CONLAN

Attorney for Petitioner

ORDER

Pursuant to stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 

SAMUEL CONTI

United States District Judge

11/13/07

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Samuel Conti

Case 3:07-cv-01541-SC Document 12 Filed 11/15/07 Page 2 of 2