Chihai v. Bondi

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE GHEORGHE CHIHAI, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-01477-LK Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED v. MOTION TO HOLD CASE IN ABEYANCE PAMELA BONDI, et al., Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ Stipulated Motion to Hold Case in Abeyance. Dkt. No. 8. Plaintiff Gheorghe Chihai brought this litigation under the Administrative Procedure Act and Mandamus Act seeking to compel Defendants to adjudicate his asylum application. Dkt. No. 1 at 1, 5–6; see also Dkt. No. 8 at 1. The parties now seek to hold this case in abeyance until February 26, 2026, as they “are currently working towards a resolution to this litigation” and believe “additional time” may enable them to resolve the case “without the need [for] further judicial intervention.” Dkt. No. 8 at 1–2. “[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). The Court “may order a stay of the action pursuant to its power to control its docket and calendar and to provide for a just determination of the cases pending before it.” Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 864 (9th Cir. 1979). In considering whether to grant a stay, courts consider several

factors, including “the possible damage which may result,” “the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward,” and “the orderly course of justice[.]” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). As noted above, this case may be resolved without the need for further judicial intervention. The parties relate that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) has now scheduled Mr. Chihai’s asylum interview for October 29, 2025, and that “USCIS agrees to diligently work towards completing the adjudication within 120 days of the interview, absent unforeseen or exceptional circumstances that would require additional time for adjudication.” Dkt. No. 8 at 2. “Once the application is adjudicated, Plaintiff will dismiss the case with each party to bear their own litigation costs and attorneys’ fees.” Id. A stay to allow this process to play out will not cause

any damage or result in any hardship or inequity to any party, and will promote the orderly course of justice as well as preserve the parties’ and the Court’s resources. CMAX, 300 F.2d at 268. The Court thus GRANTS the parties’ stipulated motion. Dkt. No. 8. This case will be held in abeyance until February 26, 2026. The parties are ORDERED to submit a joint status report on or before that date. Dated this 6th day of October, 2025. A Lauren King United States District Judge