Gilyov v. Bondi

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: October 10, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01625
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 IVAN GILYOV, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-01625-LK 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED 12 v. MOTION TO HOLD CASE IN ABEYANCE 13 PAMELA BONDI, et al., 14 Defendants. 15

16 This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ Stipulated Motion to Hold Case in 17 Abeyance. Dkt. No. 9. Plaintiff Ivan Gilyov brought this litigation under the Administrative 18 Procedure Act and Mandamus Act seeking to compel Defendants to adjudicate his asylum 19 application. Dkt. No. 1 at 1, 4–5; see also Dkt. No. 9 at 1. The parties now seek to hold this case 20 in abeyance until March 4, 2026, as they “are currently working towards a resolution to this 21 litigation” and believe “additional time” may enable them to resolve the case “without the need of 22 further judicial intervention.” Dkt. No. 9 at 1–2. 23 “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to 24 control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for 1 counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). The Court “may order 2 a stay of the action pursuant to its power to control its docket and calendar and to provide for a 3 just determination of the cases pending before it.” Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 4 F.2d 857, 864 (9th Cir. 1979). In considering whether to grant a stay, courts consider several

5 factors, including “the possible damage which may result,” “the hardship or inequity which a party 6 may suffer in being required to go forward,” and “the orderly course of justice[.]” CMAX, Inc. v. 7 Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). 8 As noted above, this case may be resolved without the need for further judicial intervention. 9 The parties relate that USCIS has now scheduled Mr. Gilyov’s asylum interview for November 4, 10 2025, and that “USCIS agrees to diligently work towards completing the adjudication[] within 120 11 days of the interview, absent unforeseen or exceptional circumstances that would require 12 additional time for adjudication.” Dkt. No. 9 at 2. “Once the application is adjudicated, Plaintiff 13 will dismiss the case.” Id. A stay to allow this process to play out will not cause any damage or 14 result in any hardship or inequity to any party, and will promote the orderly course of justice as

15 well as preserve the parties’ and the Court’s resources. CMAX, 300 F.2d at 268. 16 The Court thus GRANTS the parties’ stipulated motion. Dkt. No. 9. This case will be held 17 in abeyance until March 4, 2026. The parties are ORDERED to submit a joint status report on or 18 before that date. 19 Dated this 10th day of October, 2025. 20 A 21 Lauren King United States District Judge 22 23 24