1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CHETHAN JAYARAM SHANKAR, et al., Case No. 22-cv-04040-HSG

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

STAY

9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 18 10 UR M. JADDOU, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 Pending before the Court is a motion to stay filed by Defendants Ur M. Jaddou, Director of 14 United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), and Antony J. Blinken, Secretary 15 of the United States Department of State (“DOS”). Dkt. No. 18. Defendants seek to stay this 16 action pending resolution of the appeal before the Ninth Circuit in Babaria v. Blinken, Case No. 17 22-16700. The Court finds this matter appropriate for disposition without oral argument and the 18 matter is deemed submitted. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). For the reasons detailed below, the Court 19 GRANTS the motion. 20 I. BACKGROUND 21 Plaintiffs Chethan Jayaram Shankar and Ramya Gundmi filed this action to challenge the 22 process by which USCIS and DOS adjudicate I-485 applications for lawful permanent residency 23 status. Dkt. No. 17 (“FAC”). USCIS’s internal policy requires that an immigrant visa be 24 immediately available both at the time someone files an application for adjustment of status and at 25 the time the application is adjudicated. See, e.g., id. at ¶¶ 13–38. Plaintiffs assert that this is 26 contrary to statutory requirements and congressional intent. Id. 27 Plaintiffs are Indian citizens who currently reside in the United States. See id. at ¶¶ 1–2. 1 ¶¶ 87–97. However, due to visa retrogression, they no longer have a visa number available and 2 Defendants will not adjudicate their applications. Id. at ¶¶ 38–42, 98, 104–114. Instead their 3 applications are held “in an indeterminate abeyance.” See id. at ¶ 40. Plaintiffs assert that 4 Defendants’ refusal to adjudicate their applications constitutes unlawful withholding and 5 unreasonable delay of agency action, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. Id. at 6 ¶¶ 121–217. They seek an order compelling USCIS to adjudicate their applications within 30 7 days. See id. at ¶ 224. 8 Plaintiffs’ counsel filed other similar cases in this district, including Babaria v. Blinken, 9 Case No. 22-cv-05521-SI. Like here, the plaintiffs in Babaria challenge the government’s process 10 for adjudicating I-485 applications, including the requirement that immigrant visas be immediately 11 available at the time of adjudication. See Babaria v. Blinken, Case No. 22-cv-05521-SI, Dkt. No. 12 1. The plaintiffs explain that this requirement leads to retrogression, and indefinite delays in the 13 adjudication of applications. Id. In October 2022, Judge Illston issued an order denying the 14 plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. See Babaria v. Blinken, No. 22-CV-05521-SI, 15 2022 WL 10719061, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2022). The plaintiffs sought an injunction requiring 16 USCIS and DOS to “continue adjudicating plaintiffs’ applications for adjustment of status and 17 allocating visa numbers for them.” Id. at *4. In denying the motion, Judge Illston reasoned that 18 the plaintiffs “have little to no likelihood of success on the merits” because there is “no ambiguity” 19 in the statute on which they rely, and the plaintiffs’ theory would undermine the congressional 20 limits placed on vias issued each fiscal year. Id. at *5–6. The plaintiffs have appealed this order 21 to the Ninth Circuit. Babaria v. Blinken, Case No. 22-16700 (9th Cir.). The matter is fully 22 briefed, and a hearing is scheduled for March 29, 2023. 23 Defendants move to stay this case pending resolution of the Babaria appeal. Dkt. No. 18. 24 II. LEGAL STANDARD 25 A district court’s “power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every 26 court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for 27 itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). To 1 may result from the granting of a stay,” (2) “the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in 2 being required to go forward,” and (3) “the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the 3 simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to 4 result from a stay.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962) (citing Landis, 299 5 U.S. at 254–55). “[I]f there is even a fair possibility that the stay for which [the requesting party] 6 prays will work damage to [someone] else,” then the party seeking a stay “must make out a clear 7 case of hardship or inequity in being required to go forward.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 255. A district 8 court’s decision to grant or deny a Landis stay is a matter of discretion. Dependable Highway 9 Express, Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007). 10 III. DISCUSSION 11 In opposition to the motion to stay, Plaintiffs appear to acknowledge that the issues on 12 appeal in Babaria overlap with the merits of this case. See Dkt. No. 19 at 2–4. They simply argue 13 that a stay is unwarranted because this case is still in its early stages and they will be harmed by 14 any delay in the resolution of this case. Id. Plaintiffs opine that Defendants will first challenge 15 the Court’s jurisdiction in a motion to dismiss as it has done in other cases, and this briefing can 16 happen while the Babaria appeal continues. See id. at 2, 4. The Court is not persuaded, and finds 17 that the Landis factors favor a stay in this case. 18 As to the first factor, Plaintiffs urge that they “continue to suffer harm” due to the delay in 19 adjudicating their I-485 petitions, and that staying the case prevents them from receiving the 20 “unique benefits of lawful permanent residency.” See id. at 3. Aside from generically listing the 21 benefits of lawful permanent residency, Plaintiffs make no attempt to explain the specific harm 22 that they will face from a limited stay. Plaintiffs continue to be in lawful non-immigrant status 23 and have permission to work in the United States and travel abroad. See FAC at ¶¶ 76, 95. Under 24 Plaintiffs’ broad theory, a stay would never be warranted in a case implicating immigration status. 25 Plaintiffs’ asserted hardship also rests on several assumptions: A stay would significantly 26 delay the Court’s resolution of this case, Plaintiffs will prevail on their claims for relief, and 27 Defendants will ultimately grant their I-485 petitions. But Plaintiffs fail to explain the basis of any 1 the end of this month. And as other courts have recognized, “Plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on 2 the merits of their claims is far from clear, based on the rulings in similar district court cases.” See 3 Barretto v. Jaddou, Case No. 22-cv-04869-DMR, Dkt. No. 18 at 7-8 (collecting cases). 4 As to the second factor, Defendants contend that they will suffer undue hardship due to 5 duplication of efforts and the risk of inconsistent rulings. See Dkt. No. 18 at 7-8. The Court finds 6 || these arguments are more relevant to the third factor, and to that end, weigh heavily in favor of a 7 stay. The Babaria appeal involves claims and legal questions that are identical to those raised by 8 Plaintiffs in this case, and the Ninth Circuit’s opinion is therefore likely to provide substantial 9 || guidance if not resolve Plaintiffs’ claims altogether. Accordingly, the Court finds that a limited 10 stay will facilitate judicial economy, and Plaintiffs have not plausibly shown that they will suffer 11 damage in the interim. 12 || Iv. CONCLUSION 13 The Court GRANTS the motion to stay in its discretion. Accord Sandara v. Jaddou, Case 14 No. 22-cv-04334-DMR, Dkt. No. 24; Barretto v. Jaddou, Case No. 22-cv-04869-DMR, Dkt. No. 3 15 18. The parties are directed to notify the Court within 48 hours of a decision in the Babaria a 16 appeal. The Court will also periodically evaluate the need for and reasonableness of continuing 3 17 the stay. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 || Dated: 3/8/2023 20 Abspurel 5 Mh |).

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28