Faisal Khokhar Faisal S. KhokharMohammad KhokharBilal KhokharMuhammed KhokharMohamad Khokhar Bewarned Computer IT Faisal Khokhar graduate of Arkansas State University Dark Side!! Houston Texas

 faisal khokhar is employed by Leidos, a security company for DHS. This person has done everything in his power to hurt his own family and friends.

He currently resides at 2109 sawdust rd 15204 Spring, Texas 77380

if you have more information to share and wish to help the investigation please contact the numbers below:

For Leidos: ethicspoint.com - complaint link in the top right. contact: 1.866.297.0224

For Internal Affairs: 1-800-be-alert , ( 1-800-232-5378)

The opinion of the court was delivered by: STANWOOD DUVAL, District Judge

MINUTE ENTRY

Before the Court is a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss (Rec. Doc. 5) filed by the United States. Having read the pleadings, memoranda, and relevant law, the Court DENIES the motion as meritless.

I. BACKGROUND

  Plaintiff Faisal Shafique Khokhar, a native and citizen of Pakistan, entered the United States on or about August 14, 1997, as a full-time student in F-1 immigration status authorized to attend Arkansas State University ("ASU") in Jonesboro, Arkansas. Plaintiff was only allowed to remain in the United States while he retained his status as an F-l full-time student. Khokhar failed to maintain F-l classification from September 1999 to May 2000. Page 2

  On August 26, 2000 plaintiff received an 1-20 form from ASU and applied for F-1 reinstatement with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("CIS") District Office in Memphis. That application was denied on January 17, 2001. On February 9, 2001, plaintiff obtained another 1-20 sought F-l reinstatement through the U.S. consulate in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. This student visa application was denied on the basis of family and economic ties to Pakistan insufficient to ensure that his stay in the United States would be temporary.

  Using his 1-94, passport, and new 1-20, plaintiff gained re-entry into the United States. Though plaintiff did not have a current F-l student visa, plaintiff was admitted on the basis of his other documents. After his re-entering the United States, plaintiff attended ASU full-time and was enrolled to take classes in the spring semester of 2003.

  On February 18, 2003, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, now known as the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, issued a Notice to Appear ("NTA") alleging that plaintiff failed to comply with the terms of his visa since he failed to carry a full course load from September 1999 to May 2000. The Government charged that plaintiff was removable pursuant to § 237(a)(1)(C)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)(1)(C)(i). Plaintiff responded by moving to terminate the proceedings. On May 21, 2003, the Immigration Court denied plaintiff's Motion to Terminate, finding that plaintiff had failed to comply with the requirements of his visa when he stopped attending classes full-time at ASU, and therefore had remained in the United States beyond the authorized period of stay. Plaintiff's trip to Mexico and re-entry into the United States "did not cure the period that he was out of status, did not reinstate the respondent to student status, and [] did not constitute an entry in valid student status." See In re Khokar (Rec. Doc. 5, Exh. 5 at 2-3). Having failed to maintain his Page 3 status as an F-1 student, Khokhar was found to require a new nonimmigrant visa in order to stay in the United States.

  On the same day the NTA was issued, February 18, 2003, Government officials contacted Suzanne B. Marlay ("Marlay"), ASU Associate Dean and Director of International Student & Scholar Services, to discuss plaintiff's student status. Khokhar and the Government differ as to the content of this phone call: plaintiff alleges that CIS officials threatened ASU with a denial of authority to enroll future international students if plaintiff was not immediately expelled; the Government contends that CIS officials merely informed Marlay that plaintiff had been improperly admitted to ASU, and that his expulsion was appropriate. Regardless of the actual content of the communications between CIS and Marlay, ASU expelled plaintiff following the phone call between Marlay and CIS officials.

  Following plaintiff's expulsion, plaintiff's counsel repeatedly requested that CIS "withdraw its threat against ASU" and approve the re-admission of plaintiff pending the conclusion of his removal proceeding. ASU has indicated that it would re-enroll plaintiff should he obtain appropriate immigration status. According to plaintiff's counsel, CIS officials refused to inform ASU that it could re-enroll plaintiff without ramification.

  On September 24, 2003, prior to any finding of removability by an Immigration Judge, plaintiff filed the underlying Complaint for Declaratory Relief in the Nature of Mandamus and for other Injunctive Relief (Rec. Doc. l) with the Eastern District of Louisiana, In his Complaint, which named CIS and the Department of Homeland Security ("DRS") as defendants, plaintiff requested the following relief: Page 4

1. That a judgment be entered ordering defendants to permit plaintiff to enroll at ASU;

2. That a declaration be made that plaintiff is entitled to be enrolled at a university pending resolution of removal proceedings against him;

3. That defendants, and those acting under them, be compelled to rescind their threat to deny foreign-student-admission approval to ASU;

4. That plaintiff be awarded attorneys' fees, costs and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act 28 U.S.C. § 2412; and

5. That the Court grant such other and further relief as it deems proper.

  On November 3, 2003, counsel for the Government sent a letter to plaintiff's counsel stating that CIS does not have control over whether ASU admits plaintiff as a student. Thereafter, on December l, 2003, the Government filed a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss claiming that petitioner had failed to state a valid claim against CIS and arguing that plaintiff's claims should be made against ASU.

 II. LEGAL STANDARD AND ANALYSIS

  Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) permits a defendant to seek dismissal of a complaint based on the "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." To determine whether a motion to dismiss has merit. Jefferson Parish v. Lead Ind. a*s'n. Inc., 106 F.3d 1245, 1250 (5th Cir. 1997) instructs that "[t]he standard to be applied to a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule 12(b)(6) is a familiar one." When considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), district courts should construe the complaint liberally in favor of the plaintiff, assuming all factual allegations to be true and resolving any ambiguities and doubts in favor of the plaintiff. Fernandez-Monies v. Allied Pilots a*s'n., 987 F.2d 278, 284 (5th Cir. 1993); see Leleux v. United States, 178 F.3d 750, 754 (5th Cir. 1999). A complaint may not be dismissed "unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would Page 5 entitle him to relief." Id. (quoting Lowrey v. Texas A & M Univ. Sys., 117 F.3d 242, 247 (5th Cir. 1997)); Leffall v. Dallas Independent School District, 28 F.3d 521, 524 (5th Cir. 1994); Fernandez-Monies, 987 F.2d at 284-85. However, conclusory allegations or legal conclusions masquerading as factual conclusions will not suffice to prevent a motion to dismiss. Fernandez-Montes, 987 F.2d at 284; Tuchman v. DSC Communications Corp., 14 F.3d 1061, 1067 (5th Cir. 1994).

  The Government's memorandum in support of this motion is exceptionally short on supporting legal authority. Essentially, the United States claims that ASU, rather than CIS and the DHS, is the proper party defendant to this type of action. Consequently, plaintiffs Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The instant claims are more properly brought against ASU, the Government contends, because ASU-not CIS or DHS-controls the university's enrollment practice. Unfortunately, the United States does not support this position with reference to applicable statutes or jurisprudence.

  The Government seems to have either misunderstood the remedy sought by plaintiff or mistaken the standard for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal. Khokhar is not seeking re-admission to ASU from the Government. Rather, he is seeking a declaratory statement from CIS that he should be permitted to attend ASU while he awaits resolution of his removal proceeding. He is seeking defendant's permission to attend ASU, not actual admission to the university. He is also seeking to remedy a perceived threat or directive given by CIS to ASU officials regarding plaintiff's enrollment. Khokhar alleges that the Government's threatening phone call with ASU forced the university to expel him. He contends that his expulsion was not required by the law and that he has the right to attend ASU pending resolution of his removal proceeding. Page 6

  Plaintiff has pled facts sufficient to support his claims and has satisfied the liberal standard applicable to a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss. The Government has failed to meet its burden of showing beyond doubt that "plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Leleux v. United States, 178 F.3d at 754; Lowrey v. Texas A & M Univ. Sys., 117 F.3d at 247. Accordingly,

  IT IS ORDERED that the United States' Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss (Rec. Doc. 5) is hereby DENIED.

http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/noreen-khokhar/jonesboro-arkansas-72401/noreen-khokhar-noren-khokhar-bilal-khokhar-muhammad-mohammed-drug-dealer-hydrocodone-pres-1087822

http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/FAISAL-SHAFIQ-KHOKHAR/Houston-Texas/FAISAL-SHAFIQ-KHOKHAR-Mohammad-Bilal-Khokhar-Noreen-Khokhar-Informant-Snitch-Houston-Tex-1100110

http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/gee-street-market/jonesboro-arkansas-72401/gee-street-market-mohammed-bilal-khokhar-bilal-khokhar-bewarned-pakistan-fundemental-drug-1087428

Read

ripoffreport.com/r/FAISAL-SHAFIQ-KHOKHAR/Houston-Texas/FAISAL-SHAFIQ-KHOKHAR-Mohammad-Bilal-Khokhar-Noreen-Khokhar-Informant-Snitch-Houston-Tex-1100110

I cannot wait till I meet you and your brother. God be with you that day. I will be the blind spot, I will be your mistake, I will be your last you see Faisal Bilal. Promise

Please open attached

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=i08_WWaTgus

Rude smelly Pakistani low life store. Real aweful meth smell 

I know a Faisal Khokhar 37 years old and all this information seems accurate. I meet Faisal in Texas and he has had very radical Islamic comments of hatred towards America. The Faisal I know graduated from Arkansas State Univeristy. HMMM