Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03563/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03563-0/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) 436-7169

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

STIPULATION TO EXTEND DATE OF

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE;

AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

Date: March 3, 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 March 3, 2006, to

September 1, 2006.

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 33 Filed 02/14/06 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

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).

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, at 10:00 a.m., 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, at 8:30 a.m.

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

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

Case 3:03-cv-03563-CRB Document 33 Filed 02/14/06 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

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 3

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 will

turn 21 years of age on November 2, 2005, and will then be able to file a visa petition on her

parents’ behalf.

15. 16. In light of the fact that some, if not all, of the issues raised in the current proceeding

may be resolved or narrowed in the removal proceeding, the parties jointly requested that this

Court again set a further CMC for March 3, 2006.

16. At the CMC held on June 3, 2005, this Court set a further CMC for March 3, 2006. 

17. The petitioners’ daughter, now 21 years of age, has filed a visa petition on her parents’

behalf, and that visa petition has not yet been adjudicated. The proceedings in the Immigration

Court are ongoing.

18. In light of the fact that some, if not all, of the issues raised in the current proceeding may

still be resolved or narrowed in the removal proceeding, the parties jointly request that this Court

extend the date of the next CMC to September 1, 2006.

DATED: February 9, 2006 Respectfully submitted,

KEVIN V. RYAN

United States Attorney

/s/

EDWARD A. OLSEN1

Assistant United States Attorney

Attorneys for Respondents

DATED: February 9, 2006 /s/

RANDALL B. ALLEN

ALLEN & ASSOCIATES

Attorneys for Petitioners

February 13, 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 33 Filed 02/14/06 Page 3 of 3