Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03563/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03563-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 8:1446 Petition for Naturalization Hearing

---

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

JOINT STATUS REPORT

C 03-3563-CRB 1

KEVIN V. RYAN, CSBN 118321

United States Attorney

JOANN M. SWANSON, CSBN 88143

Assistant United States Attorney

Chief, Civil Division

EDWARD A. OLSEN, CSBN 214150

Assistant United States Attorney

450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055

San Francisco, California 94102

Telephone: (415) 436-6915

FAX: (415) 436-6927

Attorneys for Respondents

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

SEAJIN OH, and

MYEONG RYEOL OH,

Husband and Wife,

Petitioners,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

SECURITY, BUREAU OF CITIZENSHIP

AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; TOM

RIDGE, Secretary of the Department of

Homeland Security; EDUARDO

AGUIRRE, JR., Director, Bureau of

Citizenship and Immigration Services;

DAVID STILL, Acting District Director

of the Bureau of Citizenship and

Immigration Services, San Francisco

Office, 

Respondents.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 03-3563-CRB

SECOND STIPULATION TO EXTEND

DATE OF CASE MANAGEMENT

CONFERENCE; AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER

Date: September 1, 2006

Time: 8:30 a.m.

The parties to the above-entitled action hereby jointly ask this Court to extend that date of the

next case management conference in this case, which is currently scheduled for September 1,

2006, to April 6, 2007.

1. The petitioners are natives and citizens of Korea who applied for naturalization pursuant to

Section 316(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Case 3:03-cv-03563-CRB Document 35 Filed 08/28/06 Page 1 of 4
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

JOINT STATUS REPORT

C 03-3563-CRB 2

2. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) denied petitioners’

applications on the ground that neither petitioner had been lawfully admitted to the United States

as a permanent resident. Specifically, the USCIS found that the petitioners had fraudulently

obtained permanent residency by paying a former USCIS examiner, Leland Sustaire, a sum of

money in exchange for the issuance lawful permanent resident cards (green cards). The petitioners

deny that they fraudulently obtained permanent residence and further deny that they paid USCIS

examiner Leland Sustaire any sum of money in exchange for the issuance of a lawful permanent

resident card.

3. The petitioners seek review of the USCIS’s decisions in district court pursuant to 8 C.F.R.

§ 336.9(b). The petitioners filed a petition for review of the USCIS’s denial of their applications

for naturalization on July 31, 2003.

4. The respondents filed an answer on September 29, 2003.

5. Following a Case Management Conference (“CMC”) on December 12, 2003, the Court set a

date of May 7, 2004, for a hearing on the parties’ motion(s) for summary judgment.

6. The Court referred the matter to an evaluator for Early Neutral Evaluation (“ENE”) on

January 6, 2004.

7. The parties participated in an ENE on March 4, 2004.

8. During the ENE, the evaluator suggested alternatives/options for a resolution of this matter.

9. In light of the fact that the parties were considering the alternatives/options for resolving

this matter proposed by the ENE evaluator, the parties requested that the deadlines for filing their

motions for summary judgment, as well as the May 7, 2004 hearing date, be vacated.

10. This Court granted the parties’ request to extend the deadlines for filing their motions for

summary judgment and set a further Case Management Conference for June 4, 2004.

11. At the further Case Management Conference on June 4, 2004, this Court directed that

representatives of the USCIS appear at the next CMC if the case was not settled and set a further

CMC for July 2, 2004.

12. At the further CMC, representatives of the USCIS and the United States Immigration and

Customs Enforcement appeared and explained that the petitioners were currently in removal

Case 3:03-cv-03563-CRB Document 35 Filed 08/28/06 Page 2 of 4
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

JOINT STATUS REPORT

C 03-3563-CRB 3

proceedings in Immigration Court and that some, if not all, of the issues raised in the current

proceeding could be resolved or narrowed in the removal proceeding.

13. In light of the fact that the petitioners’ removal hearing in Immigration Court was

scheduled for May 27, 2005, this Court set a further CMC for June 3, 2005.

14. On May 27, 2005, the Immigration Judge granted the petitioners’ request to continue their

removal hearing until November 29, 2005, in light of the fact that the petitioners’ daughter was to

turn 21 years of age on November 2, 2005, and would then be able to file I-130 visa petitions on

her parents’ behalf with the USCIS.

15. At the CMC on June 3, 2005, this Court set a further CMC for March 3, 2006, in light of

the fact that it appeared that some, if not all, of the issues raised in the current proceeding could be

resolved or narrowed in the removal proceeding..

16. At the CMC on March 3, 2006, this Court granted the parties’ stipulation to again extend

the date of the CMC in light of the facts that: the petitioners’ daughter had turned 21 years of age,

the daughter had filed I-130 visa petitions on her parents’ behalf, that the visa petitions had not yet

been adjudicated, and that the proceedings in Immigration Court were ongoing. The Court set the

next CMC for September 1, 2006.

17. A hearing is currently scheduled in Immigration Court on September 1, 2006.

18. At the hearing in Immigration Court on September 1, 2006, the Immigration Court will

inquire as to the status of the I-130 visa petitions filed by the petitioners’ daughter on her parents’

behalf. If and when the I-130 visa petitions are granted by USCIS, the Immigration Judge will

adjudicate the petitioners’ I-485 Applications for Adjustment of Status to Lawful Permanent

Resident which, if approved, will allow the petitioners to remain in the United States.

19. The parties recognize that this case has been pending on this Court’s docket for an

unusually long period of time. However, in light of the possibility that some, if not all, of the

issues raised in this case may be resolved in the removal proceeding in Immigration Court, the

parties jointly request that this Court again extend the date of the further CMC to April 6, 2007.

Case 3:03-cv-03563-CRB Document 35 Filed 08/28/06 Page 3 of 4
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

I, Edward A. Olsen, attest that both Attorney Randall B. Allen and I have signed this 1

stipulation and will produce the original signed copies upon request.

JOINT STATUS REPORT

C 03-3563-CRB 4

DATED: August 22, 2006 Respectfully submitted,

KEVIN V. RYAN

United States Attorney

/s/

EDWARD A. OLSEN1

Assistant United States Attorney

Attorneys for Respondents

DATED: August 22, 2006 /s/

RANDALL B. ALLEN

ALLEN & ASSOCIATES

Attorneys for Petitioners

ORDER

Pursuant to stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

August 25, 2006

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Charles R. Breyer

Case 3:03-cv-03563-CRB Document 35 Filed 08/28/06 Page 4 of 4