CARL BARBIER, District Judge
Before the Court is defendant's Motion to Reconsider (Rec. Doc. 8), in which the Government seeks reconsideration of the Court's Order and Reasons entered on September 28, 2004.
On August 11, 2004 the Government filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's claim, which the Government alleged was brought under the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act ("LIFE Act"), Pub.L. 105-554, 114 Stat. 2763-324 (Dec. 21, 2000). Plaintiff's request for Family Benefits had previously been denied by the National Benefits Center in St. Louis, Missouri, because he did not qualify for benefits under the LIFE Act. However, the Court's review of the Complaint revealed that it was not premised upon the Life Act, but rather upon Section 301 of the Immigration Act of 1990, ("IMMACT 90"), Pub.L. 101-649, 104 Stat. 4978. Specifically, in paragraph one of his complaint, plaintiff alleged that he was "entitled to the benefits created by the Family Unity statute, § 301 of the Immigration Act of 1990." Rec. Doc. 1, ¶ 1. Further, the Court's review of the law revealed that while plaintiff was not entitled to benefits under the Life Act, he was likely entitled to family unity benefits under IMMACT 90, and remanded the matter to the National Benefits Center for consideration of plaintiff's entitlement to the benefits plaintiff requested, under IMMACT 90.
The Government has filed the instant Motion to Reconsider, suggesting that the remand was inappropriate because plaintiff's IMMACT claim should not have been submitted to the National Benefits Center in St. Louis, but instead must be submitted to a regional service center having jurisdiction over the alien's place of residence, in this case, the California Service Center. The Court's review of the applicable regulation, specifically, 8 C.F.R. § 286.14(a), supports this contention. Moreover, plaintiff's counsel has acknowledged the applicability of this provision and plans to resubmit plaintiff's application to the California Service Center, and therefore does not oppose dismissal of the instant matter. Accordingly,
The Court confesses not to understand why counsel for the Government did not contact plaintiff's counsel following service of the complaint, to inform him that the benefit application had been sent to the wrong office, or even to mention this fact in its original Motion to Dismiss. A simple phone call might well have resulted in the voluntary dismissal of this matter months ago.
IT IS ORDERED that the Attorney General's Motion to Reconsider (Rec. Doc. 8) is GRANTED as unopposed, and this matter is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in the event that the date of plaintiff's filing of his request for Family Unity benefits is dispositive of any issues in his case, his renewed request to the California Service Center shall be deemed to relate back to the date of the filing of his original request;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court's Order and Reasons entered on September 29, 2004 (Rec. Doc. 7) is hereby VACATED.