(PS) Sayyedalhosseini v. USCIS Sacramento Field Office

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California

(PS) Sayyedalhosseini v. USCIS Sacramento Field Office

Trial Court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SONIA SAYYEDALHOSSEINI, No. 2:21-cv-1567 KJM DB PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 USCIS SACRAMENTO FIELD OFFICE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 15 SECURITY, 16 Defendant. 17 18 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a 19 United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Local Rule 302(c)(21). 20 On May 25, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 21 served on all parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 22 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days after service of the findings and 23 recommendations. The time for filing objections has expired, and plaintiff has filed objections to 24 the findings and recommendations, which the court has carefully considered. 25 In accordance with the provisions of

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 26 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court finds the 27 findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis.1

28 ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed May 25, 2022 (ECF No. 23) are adopted in 3 | full; 4 2. Defendant’s motion to remand (ECF No. 8) is granted; 5 3. Plaintiff's motion for judgment (ECF No. 21) and for decision (ECF No. 29) are denied 6 || as moot; 7 4. Defendant is instructed to reopen and complete adjudication of the citizenship 8 | application referenced in the complaint within 120 days of the filed date of this order; 9 5. The parties are instructed to file a status report within 7 days of completion of the 10 || adjudication by USCIS; and 11 6. This action is stayed. 12 | DATED: October 11, 2022. 13 14 ee 3 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 spouse “is sufficiently concrete and particularized to form the basis of an Article III Injury in 28 fact.” See Trump v. Hawaii,

138 S.Ct. 2392, 2416

(2018); Response Ex. 5, ECF No. 18 (proof of plaintiff's United States citizenship).

Reference

Status
Unknown