Opinion
2:21-cv-02204-APG-VCF
08-03-2022
PRYMAS VAZ, Plaintiff, v. UR M. JADDOU, in her official capacity, Director of USCIS; CONNIE NOLAN, in her official capacity, USCIS Acting Associate Director for SCOPS, Defendants.
Bolour/Carl Immigration Group, APC CHRISTOPHER CHIOU SCOTT A. EMERICK HOLLY A. VANCE
Bolour/Carl Immigration Group, APC
CHRISTOPHER CHIOU
SCOTT A. EMERICK
HOLLY A. VANCE
STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
(THIRD REQUEST)
Plaintiff PRYMAS VAZ, and Defendants UR M. JADDOU, in her official capacity, Director of USCIS and CONNIE NOLAN, in her official capacity, USCIS Acting Associate Director for SCOPS, hereby stipulate and agree that Defendants may have a 70-day extension of time, from July 27, 2022 to October 5, 2022, to respond to Plaintiff's Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Complaint for Declaratory Relief. (ECF No. 3).
This is a mandamus and Administrative Procedure Act action to compel USCIS to adjudicate Plaintiff's U-Visa petition and “application for advance permission to enter as a nonimmigrant.” (ECF No. 3p.2). A third extension is warranted because: 1) Plaintiff has not yet responded to the agency's amended request for evidence and the response deadline has been extended to September 25, 2022. A 70-day extension would give Plaintiff time to respond by the October 5, 2022 deadline and the agency time to address that response, thereby likely mooting the case. 2) Defense counsel's office has lost a number of attorneys and staff. As a result, defense counsel is handling a higher-than-normal caseload. 3) Only a limited number of attorneys and support staff may work in defense counsel's office at any given time due to the pandemic, thereby slowing the time it takes to process and complete required tasks. 4) Defense counsel's calendar has been busier than normal with multiple filing deadlines in several cases, including one before the Ninth Circuit. Under the circumstances, good cause exists to extend the deadline for Defendants to respond to Plaintiff's Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Complaint for Declaratory Relief . See Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(1)(A) (“When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time.. .with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before the original time or its extension expires[.]”) (emphasis added).
This is the parties' third request for an extension of time. See LR IA 6-1(a) (must advise of previous extensions). This stipulation is made in good faith and not for the purpose of undue delay.
IT IS SO ORDERED.