Ceridor v. Mayorkas
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:22-cv-01605
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Ceridor v. Mayorkas: Judge Caproni granted a stay while Ceridor pursued a possible resolution of his immigration proceedings.
Samnel Ceridor, the defendant government officials, USCIS, and the court were affected: the case was temporarily paused, the conference was postponed, and the parties were given time to pursue a possible resolution of the removal proceedings.
What happened
In Ceridor v. Mayorkas, the plaintiff asked the court to require U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to decide his application for permanent residence. The parties said he has Temporary Protected Status, a removal order, and had traveled and returned with advance permission to travel.
The parties identified a legal dispute about whether the agency or an immigration judge has authority to decide his application. They asked for time to seek termination of the removal proceedings, which could allow the agency to resume deciding the application.
Judge Valerie Caproni granted the application and stayed the case until August 4, 2022. She also postponed the initial conference to August 19 and set August 11 as the deadline for pre-conference submissions.
The detailed version
- Ceridor v. Mayorkas · No. 1:22-cv-01605
- Valerie Caproni
- May 6, 2022
Background
The plaintiff asked the court to order U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to adjudicate, meaning decide, his Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, Form I-485. The parties stated that the plaintiff is subject to a removal order but has Temporary Protected Status (TPS), and that he traveled and returned to the United States using advance parole, which is permission to travel while an immigration matter is pending.
Parties’ Requested Alternative Process
The parties identified a dispute about the legal effect of the plaintiff’s travel and return and about which agency has authority to decide his Form I-485. The government stated that, under its current interpretation of the cited immigration laws and regulations, the travel did not execute the removal order and the plaintiff therefore remained a noncitizen with a removal order. The government further stated that, in those circumstances, an immigration judge has exclusive authority to decide whether the plaintiff can adjust status and USCIS cannot adjudicate the application. These statements describe the government’s position, not a ruling by the court.
The parties said the plaintiff might be able to ask the Office of the Principal Legal Advisor of Immigration and Customs Enforcement to join a motion to reopen his removal proceedings and terminate the removal order. They stated that, if the removal proceedings were terminated through that process, USCIS could resume adjudicating the Form I-485. They jointly requested a 90-day stay to pursue that possibility and avoid unnecessary motion practice while the matter might be resolved.
Court’s Action
Judge Valerie E. Caproni granted the application. The case was stayed until Thursday, August 4, 2022. The initial pretrial conference set for May 27, 2022, was adjourned to August 19, 2022, at 10:00 a.m., and the required pre-conference submissions were made due by August 11, 2022. The order did not decide whether USCIS or an immigration judge has authority to adjudicate the plaintiff’s Form I-485.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.