Zheng v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
- Katherine Failla
- 1:22-cv-06555
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Zheng v. USCIS, Judge Failla ordered Zheng to explain his nonresponse and granted the government more time to answer.
The plaintiff, Yubin Zheng, must respond to the court’s order by January 27, 2023; the government received until February 13, 2023, to respond to the complaint. The plaintiff’s representation status remained unresolved.
What happened
Zheng v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services concerns a request to require the agency to decide Zheng’s asylum and withholding-of-removal application. The government said Zheng had not followed an earlier order requiring him to clarify whether he had a lawyer.
The court granted the government’s application. It ordered Zheng to explain in writing by January 27, 2023, why the case should not be dismissed for failing to pursue it or respond to a court order. The court also extended the government’s deadline to respond to February 13, 2023, and postponed the initial pretrial conference until further notice.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla issued the order on November 22, 2022. The court did not dismiss the case in this order; it warned that failing to respond would likely lead to dismissal.
The detailed version
- Zheng v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services · No. 1:22-cv-06555
- Katherine Failla
- Nov. 22, 2022
Background
The plaintiff seeks an order requiring U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to adjudicate an Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal on Form I-589. The government stated that the plaintiff claimed to be proceeding without a lawyer, but that the complaint included an email address associated with attorney Morris/Mouren Wu’s law office and a filing receipt addressed to Yubin Zheng in care of Morris M. Wu.
On September 30, 2022, the court ordered the plaintiff to clarify by November 15 whether he was represented by counsel. If he was represented, the court also required counsel to file a notice of appearance by that date. The government told the court that neither the plaintiff nor Mr. Wu had provided the required information.
Ruling
The court granted the government’s application. It ordered the plaintiff to show cause in writing by January 27, 2023, why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute or respond to a court order. The order warned that failing to respond would likely result in dismissal, but the court did not dismiss the case in this order.
The court granted the government an extension of time to respond to the complaint until February 13, 2023. It postponed the initial pretrial conference, which had been scheduled for December 20, 2022, until further notice while awaiting the plaintiff’s response. The clerk was directed to mail the order to the plaintiff’s listed address and terminate the pending motion at docket entry 11.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.