Opinion
2:23-cv-01456-TL
04-02-2024
MIQUELINA PEDRO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UR M. JADDOU, et al., Defendants.
TESSA M. GORMAN, United States Attorney MINDA A. THORWARD, WSBA# 47594 Attorney for Plaintiffs MICHELLE R. LAMBERT, NYS #4666657 Assistant United States Attorney Attorney for Plaintiffs Attorneys for Defendants
Noted for Consideration: April 1, 2024
TESSA M. GORMAN, United States Attorney
MINDA A. THORWARD, WSBA# 47594 Attorney for Plaintiffs
MICHELLE R. LAMBERT, NYS #4666657
Assistant United States Attorney Attorney for Plaintiffs Attorneys for Defendants
STIPULATED MOTION TO HOLD CASE IN ABEYANCE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
TANA LIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiffs and Defendants, by and through their counsel of record, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6 and Local Rules 7(d)(1), 10(g) and 16, hereby jointly stipulate and move to continue to stay these proceedings until July 15, 2024. 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-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal. This case is currently stayed through April 4, 2024. Dkt. No. 12. The parties are currently working towards a resolution to this litigation. For good cause, the parties request that the Court continue to hold the case in abeyance until July 15, 2024.
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.
With additional time, this case may be resolved without the need of further judicial intervention. USCIS held Plaintiffs’ asylum interview on December 6, 2023. At the interview, the agency learned that Plaintiffs would like the principal applicant to be changed to the husband. Because of this change, the asylum interview was rescheduled to March 13, 2024, after the agency received updated paperwork from Plaintiffs. However, due to a staffing issue, USCIS had to reschedule Plaintiffs’ interview to May 16, 2024.
Plaintiffs will submit all supplemental documents and evidence, if any, to USCIS seven to ten days prior to the interview date. If needed, Plaintiffs agree to bring an interpreter to the interview. Otherwise, the interview may have to be rescheduled. After the interview, USCIS will need time to adjudicate their asylum application. USCIS will use its best efforts to adjudicate the applications within 60 days of the interview. If the adjudication does not occur by that date, USCIS will submit a status report to this Court. Once the application is adjudicated, Plaintiffs intend to dismiss the case. Accordingly, the parties request this abeyance to allow USCIS to conduct Plaintiffs’ asylum interview and then process their asylum application.
As additional time is necessary for this to occur, the parties request that the Court hold the case in abeyance until July 15, 2024. The parties will submit a joint status report on or before July 15, 2024.
[PROPOSED] ORDER
The case is held in abeyance until July 15, 2024. The parties shall submit a joint status report on or before July 15, 2024. It is so ORDERED.