DISCOVERY PLAN AND RULE 26(f) REPORT

CAM FERENBACH, Magistrate Judge.

PLAINTFF, ERLING OLMERO LOPEZ-POLANCO, (hereinafter "LOPEZ") and DEFENDANTS, LORETTA E. LYNCH, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL Et. Al., (hereinafter "DEFENDANTS," and with LOPEZ, referred to as "PARTIES") hereby submit their Joint Discovery Plan and Rule 26(f) Report under Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 26-1.

1. NATURE OF THE CASE AND SUMMARY OF THE ISSUES

This is an immigration case brought under the Administrative Procedures Act (hereinafter "APA"), 5 U.S.C. § 702 et seq., in which Plaintiff challenges the denial by the United States Citizenship & Immigration Services (hereinafter "USCIS") of Plaintiff's Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status (Form I-918).

The U nonimmigrant classification provides temporary benefits to alien victims of qualifying criminal activity who assist government officials investigating or prosecuting such crimes. An alien granted U nonimmigrant classification may apply to become a lawful permanent resident after having been continuously physically present in the United States in U status for a period of three years. The U nonimmigrant classification also provides for derivative U status to a victim's qualifying family members.

To be eligible for a U visa, certain requirements must be met: (1) the alien is the victim of qualifying criminal activity; (2) the alien suffered substantial physical or mental abuse resulting from his victimization; (3) the alien possesses information about the qualifying criminal activity of which he was a victim; (4) the alien was helpful, is helpful, or is likely to be helpful to law enforcement authorities investigating or prosecuting the qualifying criminal activity; (5) the qualifying criminal activity occurred in the United States or violated U.S. laws; and (6) the alien is admissible to the United States or USCIS has waived his ground(s) of inadmissibility. An alien applying for U nonimmigrant classification who is inadmissible must submit, along with his Form I918 U petition, a Form I-192, Application for Advance Permission to Enter the United States as a Nonimmigrant.

The principal issue in this case is whether LOPEZ was the victim of qualifying criminal activity to be eligible for the U visa. LOPEZ contends that the CAR does not support USCIS's decision, that the decision was arbitrary and capricious under the APA. See 5 U.S.C. §706(2)(A). DEFENDANTS contend that the CAR supports USCIS's decisions and that the Court must defer to the agency's reasonable interpretations of its governing regulations. LOPEZ seeks an order directing DEFENDANTS to approve the Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status (Form I-918). Plaintiff seeks attorneys fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. §2412.

2. DISCOVERY PLAN AND DISCOVERY CUT-OFF DATE

The PARTIES agree that discovery in this case is limited to the CAR and that no privilege issues arise from production of the CAR.

DEFENDANTS will provide to LOPEZ's counsel the Certified Administrative Record in PDF format on or before December 14, 2015.

Accordingly, the PARTIES agree that this case is exempt from initial disclosures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure §26(a)(1)(B)(i). The PARTIES also agree that no further pretrial discovery or disclosure of electronically stored information is necessary.

To prevent unauthorized access to LOPEZ's personal, financial and immigration records, the PARTIES have stipulated and have agreed to DEFENDANTS filing the CAR with the Court under seal concurrent with DEFENDANTS' filing of their Motion for Summary Judgment.

3. PROPOSED DEADLINE FOR AMENDING THE PLEADINGS AND ADDING PARTIES

The PARTIES propose December 14, 2015, as the deadline for joining additional PARTIES and amending pleadings.

4. FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 26(a)(2) DISCLOSURES (EXPERTS)

Because the PARTIES agree that discovery in this case is limited to the CAR and do not anticipate the use of experts, a date for disclosure of expert testimony is not necessary.

5. DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS

The PARTIES agree that the Court can decide the entire case based on cross motions for summary judgment. Accordingly, the PARTIES agree that a trial in this matter is unnecessary. The PARTIES' proposed briefing schedule is as follows:

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6. PRETRIAL STATEMENTS AND PRETRIAL ORDER

The PARTIES agree that a trial in this matter is unnecessary. If a trial is conducted, however, the PARTIES agree to dispense with the pretrial statements and pretrial order of the sake of economy.