F.C. v. Department of Homeland Security

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Washington
DecidedJanuary 8, 2024
Docket2:23-cv-01800
StatusUnknown

This text of F.C. v. Department of Homeland Security (F.C. v. Department of Homeland Security) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
F.C. v. Department of Homeland Security, (W.D. Wash. 2024).

Opinion

1 District Judge Barbara J. Rothstein

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 AT SEATTLE

7 F.C., No. 2:23-cv-1800-BJR

8 Plaintiff, STIPULATED MOTION TO HOLD CASE IN ABEYANCE AND ORDER 9 v.

10 United States Department of Homeland Security, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 Plaintiff brought this litigation pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act and the 14 Mandamus Act seeking an order from this Court compelling the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 15 Services (“USCIS”) to adjudicate her Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of 16 Removal. The parties are currently working towards a resolution to this litigation. For good cause, 17 the parties request that the Court hold the case in abeyance until April 22, 2024. 18 Courts have “broad discretion” to stay proceedings. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 19 (1997). “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to 20 control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for 21 counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); see also Fed. R. Civ. 22 P. 1. 23 24 1 With additional time, this case may be resolved without the need of further judicial 2 intervention. USCIS has scheduled Plaintiff’s asylum interview for January 23, 2024. Plaintiff 3 agrees to submit all supplemental documents and evidence, if any, to USCIS seven to ten days 4 prior to the interview date. Plaintiff recognizes that failure to submit documents prior to the 5 interview may require the interview to be rescheduled and the adjudication delayed. If needed,

6 Plaintiff will bring an interpreter to the interview, otherwise the interview will need to be 7 rescheduled and the adjudication delayed. USCIS agrees to work diligently towards completing 8 the adjudication within 90 days after the interview but may not be able to fully adjudicate the 9 application within that time. However, if Plaintiff’s asylum application is not adjudicated within 10 that time, USCIS will submit a status report to this Court. If Defendants promptly adjudicate 11 Plaintiff’s asylum application without the need for intervention by this Court, then Plaintiff will 12 dismiss the case with each party to bear their own litigation costs and attorneys’ fees. Accordingly, 13 the parties request this abeyance to allow USCIS to conduct Plaintiff’s asylum interview and then 14 continue to process her asylum application.

15 As additional time is necessary for this to occur, the parties request that the Court hold the 16 case in abeyance until April 22, 2024. The parties will submit a joint status report on or before 17 April 22, 2024. 18 Dated: January 5, 2024 Respectfully submitted, 19 TESSA M. GORMAN Acting United States Attorney 20 s/Michelle R. Lambert 21 MICHELLE R. LAMBERT, NYS #4666657 Assistant United States Attorney 22 1201 Pacific Avenue, Suite 700 Tacoma, Washington 98402 23 24 1 Phone: 253-428-3824 Email: michelle.lambert@usdoj.gov 2 Attorneys for Defendants

3 I certify that this memorandum contains 371 words, in compliance with the Local 4 Civil Rules.

5 s/Christopher Strawn CHRISTOPHER STRAWN, WSBA #32243 6 Northwest Immigrant Rights Project 615 Second Avenue, Suite 400 7 Seattle, Washington 98104 Phone: 206-957-8628 8 Email: chris@nwirp.org Attorneys for Plaintiff 9

24 1 ORDER 2 The case is held in abeyance until April 22, 2024. The parties shall submit a joint status 3 report on or before April 22, 2024. It is so ORDERED.

4 DATED this 8th day of January 2024. 5

6 A 7

8 BARBARA J. ROTHSTEIN United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Landis v. North American Co.
299 U.S. 248 (Supreme Court, 1936)
Clinton v. Jones
520 U.S. 681 (Supreme Court, 1997)
Burkhart v. Reed
22 P. 1 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1889)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
F.C. v. Department of Homeland Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fc-v-department-of-homeland-security-wawd-2024.