Nezameslami v. Department of Homeland Security

The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services filed a notice titled “Notice of Intervening Events” on 2026-06-24. The docket entry records the filing but does not describe the events reported or indicate any court action or deadlines.

The plaintiffs filed a motion asking for leave to file a reply brief and a notice of supplemental authority, attaching three exhibits (an appeal, a stay motion, and additional authority from the Dorcas matter). The docket entry records the filing but does not indicate any court ruling or set any deadline or hearing.

The docket entry indicates that two of the plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of select plaintiffs from the case. The entry does not indicate whether the court has acted on or entered the dismissals.

On 2026-06-18 the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services filed an opposition to the plaintiffs' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (docket no. 53), attaching an exhibit titled "Declaration of Angelica Alfonso-Royals."

A plaintiff filed a notice indicating voluntary dismissal of select plaintiffs from the case; the docket entry records the filing but does not state whether the court has acted to enter or approve those dismissals.

The plaintiffs filed a notice of supplemental authority attaching an exhibit titled “Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island Decision.” The filing supplies additional authority for the court’s consideration but does not indicate any court action or ruling.

The plaintiffs filed a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order with a supporting brief and attached declarations of plaintiffs as an exhibit. The docket entry records the filing and does not indicate any court ruling or a scheduled hearing or deadline.

A notice was filed indicating a voluntary dismissal of a selected plaintiff from the case; the exact procedural effect (whether the court has accepted or entered the dismissal) is unclear from the entry text.

The docket entry indicates that a notice of voluntary dismissal of select plaintiffs was filed on May 21, 2026. The filing identifies which plaintiffs submitted the notice but does not state whether the court has entered an order or taken any action regarding the dismissal.

A notice of voluntary dismissal was filed indicating that a subset of plaintiffs have been voluntarily dismissed from the case.

Defendants filed a response related to plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a surreply.

Defendants filed a response to plaintiffs' supplemental authority notice (docket text later modified).

Plaintiffs filed a notice attaching additional supplemental authorities and exhibits for the court's consideration.

Plaintiffs filed the surreply they had been granted leave to file in connection with the motion to dismiss.

Defendants filed a response to plaintiffs' earlier notice of supplemental authority (docket text later modified).

Plaintiffs moved for leave to file a surreply to the defendants' motion to dismiss and attached a proposed surreply.

Defendants filed a reply in support of their motion (a reply to a response to the motion to dismiss).

Plaintiffs filed yet another notice of supplemental authority with an attached exhibit.

Plaintiffs filed an additional notice of supplemental authority with an attached exhibit.

Plaintiffs filed another notice of supplemental authority attaching an exhibit.

Defendants filed a response to plaintiffs' filing that had been labeled as a response to defendants' notice.

Plaintiffs filed an opposition brief responding to defendants' motion to dismiss.

Plaintiffs filed another notice of supplemental authority with an attached exhibit for the court's consideration.

Defendants filed a response to plaintiffs' earlier notice (docket text later modified).

Plaintiffs filed a response to the defendants' notice of supplemental information.

Defendants filed a notice of filing an attachment related to their March 30, 2026 update of enhanced screening processes.

Defendants filed a notice attaching an update about USCIS's enhanced screening processes dated March 30, 2026.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint asserting improper venue, lack of standing, lack of jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim.

Plaintiffs filed a notice submitting supplemental authority (an exhibit) for the court's consideration.

An attorney filed a notice of planned leave of absence listing multiple future dates of unavailability.

The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services filed a consent motion seeking extra time to file an answer or otherwise respond to the complaint.

The plaintiffs filed a motion requesting permission to bring audio/visual/electronic equipment into the courtroom and attached a proposed order; the entry does not indicate any court ruling on the request.

On 2026-03-04 the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services filed a notice providing supplemental information; the filing includes an attached Declaration of Andrew Good (Attachment #1).

On 2026-02-27 the plaintiffs filed a reply brief in support of their Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 12), attaching an exhibit titled "Bowser v. Noem."

On 2026-02-23, the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services filed a response in opposition to the plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 12). The entry records the filing but does not indicate any court ruling or action on the motion.

The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services filed a consent motion requesting additional time to file its response to the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and included a supporting brief. The docket entry does not indicate whether the court has ruled on or granted the requested extension.

A second amended complaint against all defendants was filed by the plaintiffs; the docket entry also includes a clerk’s notice directing parties to the court website for pretrial instructions and the consent-to-proceed-before-a-magistrate form. The entry reflects the filing only and does not indicate any court ruling or scheduled hearing.

The plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint and a Notice of Errata against all defendants, with an attachment labeled “Errata Notice of Errata.” The docket entry also includes a clerk’s notice directing parties to the court website for pretrial instructions and associated forms.

The plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction with a supporting brief and attached eight exhibit declarations. The docket entry records the motion filing but does not reflect any court ruling or a scheduled hearing or deadline.

The plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint against all defendants. The docket entry also includes a clerk’s notice directing parties to the court website for pretrial instructions and the consent-to-proceed-before-a-magistrate form.

An application for admission pro hac vice for attorney Zachery Ryan New was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs, with a $100 application fee paid (receipt AGANDC-14943852). The entry notes the filing’s documents are not available for viewing outside the courthouse.

An electronic summons was issued directed to the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the U.S. Attorney, and the U.S. Attorney General; three summons attachments are listed. The entry appears to document issuance of those summons.

On 2026-01-14 the plaintiffs filed an application for admission pro hac vice for Jesse M. Bless, paying a $100 application fee (receipt number AGANDC-14922813); the entry notes the documents are not viewable outside the courthouse. The entry appears to be a routine pro hac vice admission filing and does not indicate any court action on the application.

The court clerk sent a letter to counsel about the court's LR 83.1 attorney admission requirements and noted the clerk will follow up by 2026-01-23. The entry appears to be an administrative notification from the clerk's office.

The clerk mailed a letter regarding the court's LR 83.1 attorney admission requirements to counsel Gregory Siskind and noted the clerk will follow up by 2026-01-23.

A proposed summons was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs; the filing included three attached summons documents for DHS and the U.S. Attorney’s Office. The entry lists the proposed summons and its attachments.

The court clerk sent a letter about the local rule LR 83.1 pro hac vice requirements to counsel and noted the clerk will follow up by 2026-01-22.

On 2026-01-09 the plaintiff filed a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief; the filing fee was paid and a civil cover sheet was attached. The entry includes a clerk’s notice about obtaining pretrial forms and was later modified to match the case name.