Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
-1-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRI...
-2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. Jurisdiction is c...
-3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5. Usama Abu Saif lawfully entered the Unit...
-4-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
also delayed Usama Abu Saif from becoming a...
-5-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Naturalization Services (hereinafter “INS”)...
-6-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Registration Number, 208-066-947. Pursuant ...
-7-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
32. The duty owed is ministerial and so pla...
-8-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendants’ failure to complete adjudicatio...
-9-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify tha...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

USAMA ABU SAIF v. USCIS (ZLA) 12-30-15 ASYLUM MANDAMUS COMPLAINT

666 views

Published on

USAMA ABU SAIF v. USCIS (ZLA) 12-30-15 ASYLUM MANDAMUS COMPLAINT. Suing because he was not interviewed within 45 days.

Published in: Government & Nonprofit
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

USAMA ABU SAIF v. USCIS (ZLA) 12-30-15 ASYLUM MANDAMUS COMPLAINT

  1. 1. -1- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA USAMA ABU SAIF, ) Plaintiff, v. JEH JOHNSON, SECRETARY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; LORETTA E. LYNCH, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES; LEON RODRIGUEZ, DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; DAVID RADEL, ACTING DIRECTOR, LOS ANGELES ASYLUM OFFICE, UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; AND UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, Defendants. __________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 8:15-CV-02172 COMPLAINT FOR RELIEF IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS AND FOR DECLARATORY OR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Anish Vashistha, Esq., State ID No. 244276 E-mail: anish@lawfirmav.com Law Firm of Anish Vashistha, APLC 5055 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. #320 Los Angeles, CA 90036-6101 Telephone: (323) 592-9980 Facsimile: (323) 592-3260 Attorney for Plaintiff, USAMA ABU SAIF Case 8:15-cv-02172-DSF-KES Document 1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 1 of 9 Page ID #:1
  2. 2. -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (Federal Question), 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(4) (Civil Rights) and 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (Supplemental Jurisdiction). This Court also has subject-matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (Mandamus Act) and 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (All Writs Act). 2. This Court may grant relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (Federal Question), 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (All Writs Act), 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02 (Declaratory Relief), the Administrative Procedures Act, and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 57 and 65. 3. Venue is proper in the Central District of California pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) in that the United States Department of Homeland Security and the United States Attorney General’s Office avail themselves of the Court’s jurisdiction, maintain offices within the Court’s jurisdiction, and conduct business within the Court’s jurisdiction. Also, Usama Abu Saif resides in Anaheim Hills, California, which is within the jurisdiction of the Court, and the acts and omissions underlying the causes of action in this matter arose within this Court’s jurisdiction. INTRODUCTION 4. Plaintiff Usama Abu Saif (hereinafter “Usama Abu Saif” or “Plaintiff”), whose Alien-Registration Number is 208-066-947, was harmed by Defendants’ violations of federal statutes and their own regulations. Defendants have mis-administered the relevant system and processing time that determines when individuals applying for asylum are interviewed and granted that status. Specifically, Defendants’ failures and errors have prevented Usama Abu Saif from having his application for asylum, also known as an asylum application, which is filed on what is known as a Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Witholding of Removal, adjudicated and therefore from being interviewed and granted asylee status in the United States of America (hereinafter “United States”). Case 8:15-cv-02172-DSF-KES Document 1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 2 of 9 Page ID #:2
  3. 3. -3- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5. Usama Abu Saif lawfully entered the United States and has continuously maintained lawful status or authorized stay. On or about February 12, 2015, Usama Abu Saif submitted his Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Witholding of Removal, and that application was received by and filed with the United States Department of Homeland Security’s United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (hereinafter “United States Citizenship and Immigration Services” or “USCIS”) on or about February 13, 2015 under receipt number ZLA-15-000-22360. He was given authorization to remain in the United States until his asylum application is decided. Defendants have delayed the adjudication of Usama Abu Saif’s application for asylum for more than ten months beyond the standard forty-five day initial interview scheduling procedure outlined in 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(5)(A)(ii). 6. Usama Abu Saif and/or his immigration attorney on his behalf has/have informed Defendants via telephone and/or written correspondence of their errors in delaying and failing to adjudicate in a timely manner the application for asylum, which if and once approved would grant Usama Abu Saif as well as his spouse and children asylee status, making them eligible potentially to apply for Lawful Permanent Residency in the United States one year thereafter. Defendants have not corrected their errors. Usama Abu Saif has requested that Defendants comply with the law and their own procedures, but Defendants have refused. As of the date of the instant Complaint, Usama Abu Saif’s application for asylum has not been adjudicated. 7. Usama Abu Saif lawfully entered the United States and was given authorization to remain in the United States until his asylum application is decided. 8. Usama Abu Saif has waited for many months to have a resolution to his immigration-related matter, namely, be granted asylee status in the United States, and continues to wait in light of Defendants’ failure to act and to comply with the law. 9. Defendants’ failures have prevented Usama Abu Saif both from being granted asylee status and thus from beginning to stabilize his life. These failures have Case 8:15-cv-02172-DSF-KES Document 1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 3 of 9 Page ID #:3
  4. 4. -4- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 also delayed Usama Abu Saif from becoming a Lawful Permanent Resident. Defendants’ actions and misinterpretations of the law have cost Usama Abu Saif untold lost opportunities for social and professional advancement and have greatly interfered with and disrupted his life. 10. Usama Abu Saif and/or his immigration attorney on his behalf has/have inquired with and have complained to Defendants about the delay without any resolution. Usama Abu Saif seeks mandamus, declarative, and injunctive relief against Defendants for Defendants’ policies, practices, interpretations of law, misrepresentations, and failures to administer properly the Immigration and Nationality Act (hereinafter “INA”) and applicable regulations. PARTIES 11. Usama Abu Saif (hereinafter “Mr. Abu Saif”) is a citizen of Ukraine and lawfully entered the United States as a valid nonimmigrant, on what is known as a B-2 visitor visa. He has maintained his lawful status or authorized stay, and he is presently lawfully living in the United States. He has been awaiting adjudication of his asylum application since approximately February 12, 2015, when he filed his application for asylum. He currently resides in Anaheim Hills, California. His Alien-Registration Number is 208-066-947, and his asylum application bears tracking number ZLA-15-000-22360. 12. Defendant Jeh Johnson (hereinafter “Mr. Johnson”) is the Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security and is sued herein in his official capacity. Mr. Johnson is responsible for the administration of the INA as it relates to USCIS in particular and to United States Immigration in general. Mr. Johnson’s rulings on matters of law are binding on USCIS. 13. Defendant Loretta E. Lynch (hereinafter “Ms. Lynch”) is the Attorney General of the United States and is sued herein in her official capacity. Ms. Lynch was responsible for the administration of the INA as it related to the legacy Immigration and Case 8:15-cv-02172-DSF-KES Document 1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 4 of 9 Page ID #:4
  5. 5. -5- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Naturalization Services (hereinafter “INS”), the functions of which as they relate to this lawsuit were transferred to USCIS. Her rulings on matters of law were binding on INS. 14. Defendant Leon Rodriguez (hereinafter “Mr. Rodriguez”) is the Director of USCIS. Mr. Rodriguez is under the jurisdiction of Mr. Johnson and is sued herein in his official capacity. Mr. Rodriguez is responsible for all actions and inactions by USCIS. 15. Defendant David Radel (hereinafter “Mr. Radel”) is the Acting Director of the Los Angeles Asylum Office of USCIS and is responsible for the actions and inactions of that Los Angeles Asylum Office. Mr. Radel is sued in his official capacity. 16. Defendant USCIS is a sub-agency of the United States. It is responsible for the adjudication of asylum applications that fall within its jurisdiction. The USCIS field office with jurisdiction over an asylum applicant’s place of residence is responsible for conducting that applicant’s asylum interview, should such an interview be scheduled by USCIS. 17. Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that all Defendants have a role in the actions and/or omissions of which Plaintiff has complained have harmed Plaintiff as related herein. EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES 18. There are no administrative remedies available to Plaintiff to redress the grievances described herein. To the extent that any administrative remedies do exist, they have been fully exhausted. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 19. Usama Abu Saif was born on April 1, 1974. He is a citizen and national of Ukraine. He lawfully entered the United States on October 9, 2014. 20. On or about February 13, 2015, Usama Abu Saif filed with USCIS a Form I- 589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal, bearing USCIS receipt number ZLA-15-000-22360. Proof of receipt by USCIS of that pending asylum application was issued to Mr. Abu Saif, who concurrently was provided his Alien- Case 8:15-cv-02172-DSF-KES Document 1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 5 of 9 Page ID #:5
  6. 6. -6- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Registration Number, 208-066-947. Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(5)(A)(ii), Mr. Abu Saif reasonably expected to be scheduled for his asylum interview within approximately forty-five days after receipt by USCIS of his asylum application. 21. Usama Abu Saif’s pending asylum application meets all legal and procedural requirements for approval, and there are no exceptional circumstances that would merit a delay in his being interviewed. 22. Defendants are not legally permitted not to adjudicate Usama Abu Saif’s asylum application. 23. Despite due diligence by Usama Abu Saif, Defendants have not applied and refuse to apply properly the law to Usama Abu Saif’s pending asylum application by refusing to adjudicate that application. 24. Defendants refuse and fail to adjudicate the asylum application to completion. 25. Defendants are required to adjudicate Usama Abu Saif’s asylum application. 26. Defendants are required to adjudicate Usama Abu Saif’s asylum application in a timely fashion. 27. Defendants’ failure to adjudicate Usama Abu Saif’s asylum application has prejudiced Usama Abu Saif. 28. Usama Abu Saif is law abiding and has positively contributed, and continues to contribute positively, to the United States. 29. Defendants’ delay, actions, and omissions in this case are unreasonable. 30. Defendants, in violation of the law, are unlawfully withholding or unreasonably delaying action on Usama Abu Saif’s asylum application and have failed to carry out the adjudicative and administrative functions delegated to them by law with regard to Usama Abu Saif’s asylum application. 31. Usama Abu Saif has a clear and certain claim. Case 8:15-cv-02172-DSF-KES Document 1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 6 of 9 Page ID #:6
  7. 7. -7- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 32. The duty owed is ministerial and so plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt. 33. No other adequate remedy is available. 34. Usama Abu Saif has been greatly damaged by the failure of Defendants to act in accord with their duties under the law. 35. By misapplying the law and failing to adjudicate Usama Abu Saif’s asylum application to fruition, Defendants have violated the Administrative Procedures Act. 36. The actions and inactions of Defendants have individually and collectively damaged Usama Abu Saif. 37. Usama Abu Saif has a right to speedy adjudication of his asylum application. 38. Usama Abu Saif is entitled to recover attorneys’ fees in this action. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of the INA and Regulations 39. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein. 40. Defendants’ failure to adjudicate and continued refusal to adjudicate Usama Abu Saif’s asylum application, an application that is pending before Defendants, violates the INA and the corresponding regulations. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Claim for Injunctive Relief 41. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein. 42. Usama Abu Saif has a legal right to have Defendants fully adjudicate his asylum application pending before Defendants. There exists no legal basis for Defendants’ failure to adjudicate the asylum application after considerable delay. Case 8:15-cv-02172-DSF-KES Document 1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 7 of 9 Page ID #:7
  8. 8. -8- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendants’ failure to complete adjudication of the asylum application pending before Defendants violates 8 U.S.C. § 1255. Usama Abu Saif has already suffered great harm, prejudice, and injury by Defendants’ failures and delay. Unless relief is promptly and permanently granted by this Court, Usama Abu Saif will suffer great and irreparable damage. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief from the Court: A. Assume jurisdiction of this matter; B. Enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff; C. Order the immediate adjudication of Plaintiff’s pending asylum application; D. Order Defendants to furnish Plaintiff’s counsel and immigration attorney, if any, immediately with the interview notice of Plaintiff’s pending asylum application; E. Conduct immediately Plaintiff’s asylum interview; F. Declare that Defendants’ delay violated the law; G. Grant Plaintiff reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and other disbursements pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412; and H. Award such other and further relief that this Court may deem just and proper. DATED: December 30, 2015 Respectfully submitted, ANISH VASHISTHA, ESQ. s/ Anish Vashistha By: Anish Vashistha, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiff, Usama Abu Saif Case 8:15-cv-02172-DSF-KES Document 1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 8 of 9 Page ID #:8
  9. 9. -9- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I filed the foregoing “COMPLAINT FOR RELIEF IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS AND FOR DECLARATORY OR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF” with the Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court for the Central District of California by using the Court’s CM/ECF system on December 30, 2015. I certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and that service will be accomplished by the Court’s CM/ECF system. Executed on December 30, 2015 in Los Angeles, California. s/ Anish Vashistha_______________ Anish Vashistha, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiff Case 8:15-cv-02172-DSF-KES Document 1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 9 of 9 Page ID #:9

×