Sarve Preet Singh; Chandni Singh; and S.S. a minor child v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; Joseph B. Edlow, Director of USCIS; Kristi Noem, Secretary of Department of Homeland Security; and United States of America

[6] 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE [9] SARVE PREET SINGH; CHANDNI SINGH; CASE NO. 2:25-cv-02213-JHC 10 and, S.S. a minor child, STIPULATED MOTION TO HOLD CASE 11 Plaintiffs, IN ABEYANCE AND ORDER 12 v. NOTED FOR CONSIDERATION: JANUARY 12, 2026 13 U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; JOSEPH B. EDLOW, Director of 14 USCIS; KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of Department of Homeland Security; and 15 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA1, 16 Defendants. [17] For good cause, Plaintiffs and Defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6 [18] and Local Rules 7(d)(1), 10(g) and 16, hereby jointly stipulate and move to stay these proceedings [19] for forty-five (45) days. Plaintiffs brought this litigation pursuant to the Administrative Procedure [20] Act and Mandamus Act seeking, inter alia, to compel U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [23] 24 1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Defendants substitute Director of USCIS Ur M. Jaddou for 1 (“USCIS”) to adjudicate his Forms I-485. Defendants’ response to the Complaint is currently due 2 on January 13, 2026. The parties are currently working towards a resolution to this litigation. 3 Courts have “broad discretion” to stay proceedings. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 , 706 4 (1997). “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to 5 control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for 6 counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); see also Fed. R. Civ. 7 P. 1 . 8 With additional time, this case may be resolved without the need of further judicial 9 intervention. USCIS recently sent out a Request for Evidence (RFE) to which Plaintiff recently 10 provided a response. USCIS agrees to diligently work towards completing the adjudication. If the 11 adjudication is not completed within the abeyance period, USCIS will provide a status report to 12 the Court. Once the application is adjudicated, Plaintiffs will dismiss the case with each party to 13 bear their own litigation costs and attorneys’ fees. Accordingly, the parties request this abeyance 14 for USCIS to complete adjudication of the relevant application. 15 As additional time is necessary for this to occur, the parties request that the Court hold the 16 case in abeyance for forty-five (45) days. The parties will submit a status update on or before the 17 end of this period. 18 // 19 // 20 // 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 1 Dated this 12th day of January, 2026. 2 CHARLES NEIL FLOYD United States Attorney [3] s/ s/ Katie D. Fairchild 4 SARVE PREET SINGH KATIE D. FAIRCHILD, WSBA No. 47712 Assistant United States Attorney 5 s/ United States Attorney’s Office CHANDNI SINGH 700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220 6 23967 N.E. 25th Street Seattle, Washington 98101-1271 Sammamish, WA 98074 Phone: (206) 553-7970 7 Phone: 425-691-6145 Fax: 206-553-4067 Email: sarvepreet@gmail.com Email: katie.fairchild@usdoj.gov [8] Pro Se Plaintiffs Attorneys for Defendants [9] I certify that this memorandum contains 10 290 words, in compliance with the Local Civil Rules. [24] 1 ORDER 2 The case is held in abeyance. The parties shall submit a status update within for forty-five 3 days. It is so ORDERED. 4 Dated this 13th day of January, 2026. [5] JohnH. Chan JOHN H. CHUN 7 United States District Judge [10] 1] [24] STIPULATED MOTION TO HOLD CASE IN ABEYANCE AND