Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01179/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01179-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PUSHPA DEVI,

Plaintiff,

 v.

EDUARDO AGUIRRE, JR., Director, United

States Citizenship and Immigration Services,

Defendant. /

No. C 05-01179 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR THE HEARING SCHEDULED ON

October 14, 2005 at 9:00 a.m.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ memoranda of points and authorities and, thus, does

not wish to hear the parties reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to

rely on authorities not cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing

counsel of these authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available

at 

the hearing. If the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the

citations to the authorities only, without argument or additional briefing. See N.D. Civil Local

Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance

on such authority.

The Court tentatively GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and DENIES

Defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment.

Case 3:05-cv-01179-JSW Document 20 Filed 10/12/05 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

The parties shall have 15 minutes to address the following questions:

1. Although the asylum approval letter dated June 18, 2002 stating that Plaintiff

was eligible for asylum “reflects a grant of asylum nunc pro tunc back [June 27,

1996,] to the date of [her] arrival in the United States,” the same letter indicates

that Plaintiff “may request derivative status for any spouse . . . within 2 years of

the date you were granted asylum status.” Further, the approval letter clearly

indicates that Plaintiff was granted asylum status pursuant to § 208(a) of the

Immigration and Nationality Act.

a. If the Court were to adopt Defendant’s position that Plaintiff was

ineligible to request derivative status for her husband because

more than 2 years had elapsed since the change in her asylum

status, what meaning can the Court afford the derivative asylum

status portion of the letter? 

b. Defendant contends the letter enumerating certain benefits

Plaintiff could obtain as an asylee was sent in error. (Defendant’s

Motion at 3.) Where in the record does the Service admit such

error? Even if the letter were sent in error, how can Defendant

claim that Plaintiff is not entitled to seek benefits under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1158(b)(3)(A)?

c. Under Defendant’s analysis, would it not have been logically

impossible for Plaintiff ever to have been eligible for the benefits

of derivative asylum status for her husband? 

2. It is apparent that the policy of granting asylum nunc pro tunc was adopted as a

legal fiction in order to benefit qualified children applicants who would

otherwise age out of their parents’ approved asylum applications. Where is there

evidence of any intent by the Service otherwise to affect, especially negatively,

the adjudication of an asylum case?

3. If Defendant believes that because Plaintiff is now a lawful permanent resident,

Plaintiff’s husband is otherwise eligible under 8 U.S.C. § 1153(a)(2)(A), why has

the Service pursued this matter?

4. Are there any other issues the parties wish to address?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 12, 2005 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-01179-JSW Document 20 Filed 10/12/05 Page 2 of 2