Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-02188/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-02188-3/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

QIN CHEN,

 Petitioner,

 v.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary,

Department of Homeland Security,

et al., 

 Respondents.

____________________________/

No. C 07-2188 WDB

ORDER RE CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

The Court has devoted considerable effort to analyzing the parties’ crossmotions for summary judgment. As the issues presented are appropriate for decision

without oral argument, the motions are deemed submitted. 

For reasons the Court will set forth in detail if this case is not rendered moot by

agency action during the first few months of 2008, the Court DENIES Respondents’

motion for summary judgment. 

At this juncture, the Court declines to rule on Petitioner’s motion for summary

judgment. As we understand the relevant law, USCIS could not take favorable action

on Petitioner’s application until a visa could be issued to Petitioner. Petitioner

contends that she is in a group (first preference category) for which visas are available

now. Respondents, on the other hand, contend that Petitioner is in the second

preference category for which no visas will be available until at least January

Case 4:07-cv-02188-WDB Document 21 Filed 12/11/07 Page 1 of 3
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

2

of 2008. The parties have not presented the Court with sufficient evidence or legal

authority to resolve this dispute. That being the situation, we hereby permit the

parties to engage in discovery, commencing immediately, that is relevant to

determining whether Petitioner is in a group that is eligible for visas now or, if not,

when visas would be available for the group in which she is appropriately categorized

for this purpose. Petitioner may file a motion for summary judgment on this issue any

time before February 11, 2008, if she has developed sufficient evidence to support

such a motion.

If Petitioner has not filed a motion on the issue of visa availability by February

11, 2008, and if USCIS has not by then made a decision on her underlying application

for adjustment of status, then by February 19, 2008, the parties must file a joint case

management statement that apprises the Court of any relevant developments that have

occurred between now and then. In this statement, the parties must set forth their

position or positions about whether Petitioner’s group is eligible for visas – or when

that group is likely to become eligible. 

If it is clear that Petitioner’s group is eligible for visas, or is about to become

eligible for visas, the Court will issue a ruling on the motion for summary judgment

that is pending now. 

If it is not clear whether Petitioner’s group is eligible for visas, then on

February 26, 2008, at 1:30 p.m., the Court will conduct a case management

conference to plan the next stages of this litigation. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 10, 2007

 

WAYNE D. BRAZIL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:07-cv-02188-WDB Document 21 Filed 12/11/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHEN,

Petitioner,

 v.

CHERTOFF, et al,

Respondents. /

Case Number: CV07-02188 WDB 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on December 11, 2007, I SERVED a true and correct copy of the attached Order re CrossMotions for Summary Judgment, by placing said copy in a postage paid envelope addressed to the

person hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy into

an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Qin Chen

2246 Magnolia Bridge

San Ramon, CA 94582

Dated: December 11, 2007

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Hera Kim, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:07-cv-02188-WDB Document 21 Filed 12/11/07 Page 3 of 3