The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Shadur
NOW COMES Your Plaintiff, MOHAMED SABA, Case No. 07 CV 2401, by and through his own and proper person and through his attorneys, THE LAW OFFICES OF KRIEZELMAN BURTON & ASSOCIATES, LLC, and hereby Motions this Honorable Court to enter an order in favor of his request for relief, and in support thereof, states as follows:
1. That is matter initially came before this Honorable Court on a Petition for Writ of Mandamus to compel the U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services to adjudicate the underlying application for adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident.
2. That on May 18, 2007, this Honorable Court entered an order granting your Plaintiff's Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
Further, the proposed Order followed.
3. That on May 25, 2007, a Motion was filed on behalf of the Defendants requesting that this Honorable Court reconsider it's order against them and allow an answer to the subject complaint.
4. That on June 1, 2007, the Motion was entered and continued to allow the Defendants to answer the complaint.
Further, the subject answer was filed on July 2, 2007.
5. That on August 13, 2007, the parties again appeared on a status call where the Defendants switched their arguments and indicated that they were now unwilling to expedite an application for adjustment of status.
6. That we urge this Honorable Court to assume jurisdiction in the subject matter and grant the Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
This is not without precedent where the Court of Appeals found jurisdiction in Iddir v. INS, 301 F.3d 492. 500 (7th Cir. 2002) and Hoosier Care v. Chertoff, 482 F.3d 897(7th Cir. 2007) to require the U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services and Federal Bureau of Investigations or any government agency to follow their own regulations, statutes and procedures.
7. That when the language of a statute or regulation is mandatory and not discretionary, jurisdiction vest in Mandamus before this Court. Iddir v. INS, 301 F.3d at 494.
With due regard to the convenience and necessity of the parties or their representatives and within a reasonable time, each agency shall proceed to conclude a matter before it. 5 U.S.C. Section 555(b).
Further, as in this case, "each applicant for adjustment of status under this part shall be interviewed by an immigration officer" and "the applicant shall be notified of the decision of the Director" and if the application is denied, the reasons for the denial. 8 C.F.R. Section ...