Opinion
2:23-cv-517-JNW
09-05-2023
AISHWARYA RAGHAVAN and AVININDRA PARUCHURI, Plaintiffs, v. UR M. JADDOU, Defendant.
TESSA M. GORMAN Acting United States Attorney MICHELLE R. LAMBERT, NYS #4666657 Assistant United States Attorney United States Attorney's Office I certify that this memorandum contains 339 words, in compliance with the Local Civil Rules. Attorneys for Defendant KRIPA UPADHYAY, WSBA #40063 Karr, Tuttle, Campbell BRADLEY B. BANIAS, SC76653 Banias Law, LLC Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Noted for Consideration: August 22, 2023
TESSA M. GORMAN Acting United States Attorney MICHELLE R. LAMBERT, NYS #4666657 Assistant United States Attorney United States Attorney's Office I certify that this memorandum contains 339 words, in compliance with the Local Civil Rules. Attorneys for Defendant
KRIPA UPADHYAY, WSBA #40063 Karr, Tuttle, Campbell BRADLEY B. BANIAS, SC76653 Banias Law, LLC Attorneys for Plaintiffs
STIPULATED MOTION TO HOLD CASE IN ABEYANCE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
Jamal N. Whitehead United States District Judge
Plaintiffs brought this litigation pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act seeking, inter alia, to compel the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to adjudicate their Form I-485s, Applications to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, in relation to Plaintiff Raghavan's Form I-526, Immigrant Petition by Alien Investor. The parties are currently working diligently towards a resolution to this litigation. For good cause, the parties request that the Court hold the case in abeyance until October 6, 2023.
Courts have “broad discretion” to stay proceedings. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 1.
Initially, Defendant moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 8. Subsequently, USCIS approved Plaintiff Raghavan's Form I-526 on June 23, 2023. As a result, Plaintiffs communicated to Defendant that they intended to amend the Complaint to challenge the agency's use of retrogression and Defendant withdrew the motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 12. Due to recent movement in the State Department's Visa Bulletin, Plaintiffs believe that there may be a visa immediately available to them as of October 1, 2023, causing a challenge to the agency's use of retrogression to be moot. Plaintiffs will be able to confirm whether a visa will be available when the State Department releases its October Visa Bulletin in mid-September.
Accordingly, this case may be resolved without the need of further judicial intervention. As additional time is necessary for this to occur, the parties request that the Court hold the case in abeyance until October 6, 2023. The parties further request that the Court vacate its Order Regarding Initial Disclosures, Joint Status Report, and Early Settlement. Dkt. No. 13. The parties will submit a joint status report on or before October 6, 2023.
[PROPOSED] ORDER
The case is held in abeyance until October 6, 2023. The parties shall submit a joint status report on or before October 6, 2023. The Order Regarding Initial Disclosures, Joint Status Report, and Early Settlement (Dkt. No. 13) is vacated. It is so ORDERED.