Szecsi v. Wolf
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:20-cv-02621
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Szecsi v. Wolf, Judge Chhabria stayed the case until August 21, 2020, while the parties pursued faster agency decisions on immigration applications.
The plaintiffs seeking action on U visa petitions and employment-authorization applications, and the federal defendants and agency involved in processing those applications.
What happened
In Szecsi v. Wolf, the plaintiffs had asked the court to require U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to act on their petitions for U visas and related employment-authorization applications.
The parties jointly asked to pause the case because the agency planned to expedite decisions that might resolve the lawsuit. The court ordered the proceedings stayed until August 21, 2020, and required a joint status report by that date.
Judge Vince Chhabria entered the stipulated order. The order did not decide the underlying claims and allowed the parties later to seek another stay, dismissal if appropriate, or return of the case to the active docket.
The detailed version
- Szecsi v. Wolf · No. 3:20-cv-02621
- Vince Chhabria
- July 18, 2020
Background
The plaintiffs filed a mandamus action, meaning a lawsuit seeking to require a government agency to take an action, on April 15, 2020. They asked U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to act on their petitions for U nonimmigrant status, known as U visa petitions, and related applications for Employment Authorization Documents.
The parties reported that they were communicating cooperatively about USCIS’s plan to expedite adjudication of the U visa petitions for possible placement on the U visa waitlist and to expedite the employment-authorization applications. They jointly requested a temporary stay, or pause, to allow that administrative process to proceed.
Order
The court approved the parties’ stipulation and ordered that the proceedings be stayed until August 21, 2020. The parties were required to file a joint status report by that date. The order stated that the parties could then request a further stay, dismissal of the litigation if appropriate, or placement of the case back on the court’s active docket.
Effect of the Order
This order paused the litigation but did not decide whether the plaintiffs were entitled to the requested agency action. It also did not dismiss the case. Judge Vince Chhabria issued the order based on the parties’ agreement and their stated effort to pursue a possible administrative resolution.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.