Holmes v. Mayoekas
- Gregory Woods
- 1:23-cv-03847
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Holmes v. Mayorkas, Judge Woods granted a stay while immigration applications were scheduled for an interview and the parties considered resolving the case.
The plaintiffs seeking USCIS adjudication of the applications, the government defendants, and the scheduled proceedings in the case were affected by the stay.
What happened
In Holmes, et al. v. Mayorkas, et al., the plaintiffs asked the court to require United States Citizenship and Immigration Services to decide two immigration applications involving Leroy Thaddeus Tavares.
The government and plaintiffs jointly requested a 90-day pause after the agency scheduled an interview for Mr. Tavares on July 25, 2023. They said the interview might resolve the case without further court involvement.
Judge Gregory H. Woods granted the stay through September 26, 2023. He also postponed the scheduled pretrial conference and related filings without setting a new date, and directed the parties to provide a status update or dismissal proposal by August 25, 2023.
The detailed version
- Holmes v. Mayoekas · No. 1:23-cv-03847
- Gregory Woods
- June 27, 2023
Background
The plaintiffs sought an order requiring United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to adjudicate a Petition for Alien Relative, Form I-130, filed on behalf of Leroy Thaddeus Tavares, and Mr. Tavares’s Application to Register or Adjust Status, Form I-485.
Request for a Stay
The government and the plaintiffs jointly asked the court to stay, or pause, the case for 90 days. The request stated that USCIS had issued an interview notice on June 22, 2023, setting an interview concerning Mr. Tavares’s application for July 25, 2023. The parties said the case might be resolved without further court intervention and proposed a joint status update or a stipulation and proposed dismissal order by August 25, 2023.
Ruling
Judge Gregory H. Woods granted the requested stay through September 26,
- The court postponed the initial pretrial conference and the related case-management filings without setting a new date. The parties were directed to provide a joint status update or a stipulation and proposed order of dismissal by August 25,
- The court also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion listed at docket entry
- The order did not decide whether USCIS had unlawfully delayed adjudication or otherwise resolve the underlying immigration applications.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.