Saliba v. Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:24-cv-00715
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Saliba v. Director of USCIS, Judge Abrams extended the government’s response deadline, adjourned the conference, and required plaintiffs’ response letter.
The nine plaintiffs, the government, and the parties’ pretrial deadlines and conference schedule.
What happened
Saliba v. Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is a lawsuit by nine unrelated foreign nationals seeking an order requiring U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to decide their petitions to remove conditions on permanent-resident status.
The government asked for more time to respond, stating that the agency had approved six plaintiffs’ petitions and requested additional evidence from the other three. It also asked the court to cancel or postpone the initial pretrial conference and related filing requirements.
Judge Ronnie Abrams extended the government’s response deadline to May 8, 2024, postponed the conference and related deadlines, and ordered the plaintiffs to file a letter by April 10 responding to the government’s request to cancel those requirements.
The detailed version
- Saliba v. Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services · No. 1:24-cv-00715
- Ronnie Abrams
- Apr. 4, 2024
Background
The plaintiffs are nine unrelated foreign nationals who brought an Administrative Procedure Act lawsuit seeking an order requiring U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to adjudicate their Forms I-829, petitions by investors to remove conditions on permanent-resident status.
Requests in the Government’s Letter
The government requested a 30-day extension of its deadline to respond to the complaint, from April 8 to May 8, 2024. It stated that USCIS had approved the Forms I-829 for six plaintiffs: Larissa Saliba, Feng Wan, Hoang Mai Ngo, Giang Doan, Deepa Joykutty, and Rishabh Singh. For the remaining three plaintiffs—Yawei Liu, Swatika Rajaram, and Hua Zheng—the agency had requested additional evidence and had not yet received responses. The government said it anticipated filing a motion to dismiss and needed additional time to prepare it.
The government also asked the court to cancel the initial pretrial conference and related filing obligations, arguing that this Administrative Procedure Act case was exempt from certain scheduling, discovery-conference, and initial-disclosure requirements. The plaintiffs did not agree that those requirements were inapplicable. Alternatively, the government asked to postpone the conference and related obligations for 30 days.
Court’s Order
Judge Ronnie Abrams extended the government’s deadline to respond to the complaint until May 8, 2024. The court also postponed the deadline for the parties to file a joint letter, proposed scheduling order, and case-management plan, and postponed the initial pretrial conference originally scheduled for April 12, 2024.
The court ordered the plaintiffs to file a letter by April 10, 2024, responding to the government’s argument that the conference and related obligations should be canceled. The opinion does not state that the court ruled on whether any plaintiff’s claims were moot or on the government’s anticipated motion to dismiss.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.