DARCHINI V. POMPEO (CACD CASE # 8:19-cv-01417-JVS-DFM)
ABOUT THE CASE
In Darchini v. Pompeo, 14 Iranian American families are challenging the U.S. Government’s unreasonable administrative delays in adjudicating case-by-case waivers of under the travel ban. Challenged policies include the U.S. Government’s designating the authority and discretion to approve case-by-case waivers to individual consular officers to consular managers, visa chiefs, consular section chiefs, consular management and Visa Office, which is unlawful under Presidential Proclamation 9645, §3(C) ("PP 9645"). Plaintiffs in this action are U.S. citizens, Legal Permanent Residents, and their Iranian national relatives or fiancées who were visa applicants that had been denied timely adjudication of case-by-case PP 9645 waivers. Some families have waited in excess of 600 days.
UPCOMING HEARINGS
What: Hearing on government Defendants' motion to stop Plaintiffs from taking State Department deposition on the topics of: (1) waiver adjudication status for 13 plaintiffs who haven't waivers (2) PP 9645's waiver provision; (3) guidelines on waiver scheme implementation; (4) designation of authority to non-consular officers to adjudicate waivers; and (5) the PP9645 Brain Trust.
When: October 29, 2019, at 10:00 am
Where: United States Courthouse for the Central District of California
Ronald Reagan Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse
411 West 4th Street, Courtroom 6B, Santa Ana, California 92701
What: Rule 26(f) Pretrial Scheduling Conference
When: December 9, 2019, at 10:30 am
Where: United States Courthouse for the Central District of California
Ronald Reagan Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse
411 West 4th Street, Courtroom 10C, Santa Ana, California 92701
The fourteen Iranian American families are represented by Curtis Lee Morrison through:
The Law Office of Rafael Ureña
925 N La Brea Ave, 4th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90038
(917) 204-0670
For a free consult, reach Curtis Morrison via email: curtis@curtismorrisonlaw.com / (telegram/whatsapp: 714-661-3446).
COURT ORDERS AND IMPORTANT FILINGS
OCT. 3 , 2019 ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
SEPT. 29, 2019 PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO ENFORCE MAGISTRATE'S ORDER
SEPT. 27, 2019 ORDER SETTING RULE 26(f) PRE-TRIAL SCHEDULING CONFERENCE FOR DEC. 9, 2019
SEPT. 26, 2019 DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO ENFORCE MAGISTRATE'S ORDER OF AUGUST 27, 2019
SEPT. 24, 2019 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
SEPT. 13, 2019, DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
SEPT. 13, 2019, PLAINTIFFS' APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANTS' AUTOMATED PRE-VETTING HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED EXHIBIT A: EMAIL
SEPT 9, 2019 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 11
AUGUST 16, 2019 DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
AUGUST 16, 2019 DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY
JULY 29, 2019 ORDER GRANTING MOTION BY PLAINTIFFS JOHN DOE AND JANE DOE TO PROCEED UNDER PSEUDONYMS
JULY 27, 2019 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
JULY 23, 2019 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT TO UNITED STATES JUDGES
JULY 22, 2019 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS