Pilco v. United States Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration…
Pilco v. United States Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-10051
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 12
In Pilco v. United States Department of Justice, Judge Swain granted Diego Pilco 60 days to amend his insufficient immigration petition.
Diego Pilco must provide additional information about his immigration application and appeal within 60 days if he wishes to continue the case. The United States Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review remains the respondent, and the court did not decide whether Pilco is entitled to immigration-related relief.
What happened
In Pilco v. United States Department of Justice, Diego Pilco, representing himself, asked the federal court to help with an immigration appeal. He said the decision was incorrect but provided few details.
The court said the petition did not contain enough facts to show that Pilco was entitled to relief from an Executive Office for Immigration Review decision. The court therefore gave him 60 days to file an amended petition explaining his application, agency decisions, appeals, and requested relief.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered Pilco to submit the amended petition with the required case number and said no summons would issue yet. She also denied fee-waiver status for any appeal from this order because the court determined that such an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Pilco v. United States Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration… · No. 1:23-cv-10051
- Laura Swain
- Jan. 16, 2024
Background
Diego Pilco, who was representing himself, filed what he called an “immigration appeal” against the United States Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review, referred to as EOIR. He asked the court to help with an appeal by reviewing evidence concerning him and his children. He stated that he had presented everything required and believed the answer he received was incorrect.
Pilco did not provide additional facts explaining the type of immigration application involved, the decision being challenged, the agency that made the decision, or the relief he wanted. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees in advance.
Court’s analysis
The court concluded that the petition did not provide enough information to suggest that Pilco was entitled to relief from an EOIR decision. The facts appeared to indicate that EOIR had made an unfavorable decision regarding Pilco’s immigration application, possibly involving his children, but the court could not determine whether he was entitled to any relief.
Rather than deciding the underlying immigration issue, the court gave Pilco permission to file an amended petition. The court directed him to include a short and plain statement of the relevant facts, including: the type, name, and number of the immigration application; all decisions about the application and the agencies that issued them; any appeals he filed; and the relief he sought from EOIR.
Ruling
Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted Pilco leave to file an amended petition within 60 days of January 16, 2024. He had to submit it to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit, label it “Amended Petition,” and include docket number 23-CV-10051 (LTS). The court stated that no summons would issue at that time.
The order warned that if Pilco did not comply within the allowed period and could not show good cause for the failure, the petition would be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The court also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Pilco permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal.
Read the full 12-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.