Kranthi Kiran Pandiri and Anusha Muthyampeta v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS); Joseph B. Edlow, the Director, USCIS; and Kristi Noem, the Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security

District Court, W.D. Washington·Decided February 2, 2026·No. 2:25-cv-02571·Unknown

Opinion

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 KRANTHI KIRAN PANDIRI and ANUSHA Case No. 2:25-cv-02571-JHC 10 MUTHYAMPETA, STIPULATED MOTION TO STAY CASE 11 Plaintiffs, IN ABEYANCE AND ORDER v. 12 Noted for Consideration: UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND January 29, 2026 13 IMMIGRATION SERVICES (USCIS); JOSEPH B. EDLOW, the Director, USCIS; and 14 KRISTI NOEM, the Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 15 Defendants. 16 17 For good cause, Plaintiffs and Defendant, by and through their counsel of record, pursuant 18 to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6 and Local Rules 7(d)(1), 10(g) and 16, hereby jointly stipulate 19 and move to stay these proceedings until April 2, 2026. Plaintiffs brought this litigation pursuant 20 to the Administrative Procedure Act and Mandamus Act seeking, inter alia, to compel U.S. 21 Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to adjudicate their EB-5 visa applications. 22 Defendant’s answer to the Complaint is due February 16, 2026. 23 Courts have “broad discretion” to stay proceedings. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 24 (1997). “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to 1 control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for 2 counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); see also Fed. R. Civ. 3 P. 1.

4 USCIS needs additional time to continue processing the applications. Allowing USCIS 5 additional time to complete this processing may narrow the issues. Accordingly, the parties 6 request that the Court hold the case in abeyance until April 2, 2026. The parties will submit a 7 status update on or before April 2, 2026. 8 DATED this 29th day of January, 2026.

9 Respectfully submitted,

10 CHARLES NEIL FLOYD United States Attorney 11 s/ Matt Waldrop s/ Kranthi Kiran Pandiri 12 MATT WALDROP, GA No. 349571 KRANTHI KIRAN PANDIRI, Pro Se Assistant United States Attorney 9540 180th Avenue NE, Unit 102 13 United States Attorney’s Office Redmond, Washington 98052 Western District of Washington Phone: 346-401-3191 14 700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220 Email: kranthikiran399@gmail.com Seattle, Washington 98101-1271 15 Phone: 206-553-7970 Plaintiff Fax: 206-553-4067 16 Email: james.waldrop@usdoj.gov

17 Attorneys for Defendants

18 I certify that this memorandum contains 200 words, in compliance with the Local Civil Rules. 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 ORDER 2 The case is held in abeyance until April 2, 2026. The parties shall submit a status update 3 or before April 2, 2026. It is so ORDERED. 4 DATED this 2nd day of February, 2026. 5 6 / oh Chars— JOHN H. CHUN 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

STIPULATED MOTION TO STAY CASE IN ABEYANCE AND

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

Kranthi Kiran Pandiri and Anusha Muthyampeta v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS); Joseph B. Edlow, the Director, USCIS; and Kristi Noem, the Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, (W.D. Wash. 2026).

Kranthi Kiran Pandiri and Anusha Muthyampeta v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS); Joseph B. Edlow, the Director, USCIS; and Kristi Noem, the Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Kranthi Kiran Pandiri and Anusha Muthyampeta v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS); Joseph B. Edlow, the Director, USCIS; and Kristi Noem, the Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Landis v. North American Co.
299 U.S. 248 (Supreme Court, 1936)
Clinton v. Jones
520 U.S. 681 (Supreme Court, 1997)
Jones v. St. John Irrigating Co.
3 P. 1 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1884)