Polus v. Radel et al

1
25-CV-542 JLS (DEB)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SALWA JIRJEES POLUS,
Plaintiff,
v.
DAVID M. RADEL, Los Angeles Asylum
Office, Director, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No.: 25-CV-542 JLS (DEB)
ORDER GRANTING JOINT
MOTION TO STAY
(ECF No. 7)
Presently before the Court is the Parties’ Joint Motion to Stay (“Joint Mot.,” ECF
No. 7). In this case, Plaintiff seeks adjudication of her asylum application, which has been
pending for nearly ten years. ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”) ¶ 6. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services (“USCIS”) conducted an asylum interview for Plaintiff on September 25, 2025,
however, Plaintiff added a dependent spouse to her Form I-589. 	Joint Mot. at 1. 	The
Parties represent that USCIS needs additional time to complete the vetting process for
Plaintiff’s dependent spouse and to consider the new USCIS policies impacting this case.
Id. at 2. The Parties seek that the stay in this litigation be extended until May 13, 2026, to
continue to work towards an extrajudicial resolution. Id.
“District courts have inherent authority to stay proceedings before them.” Rohan ex
rel. Gates v. Woodford, 334 F.3d 803, 817 (9th Cir. 2003), abrogated on other grounds by
Ryan v. Gonzales, 568 U.S. 57 (2013). “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to
Case 3:25-cv-00542-JLS-DEB Document 8 Filed 01/20/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
25-CV-542 JLS (DEB)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with
economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co.,
299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). 	In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that granting the
requested stay would best promote the interests of securing a just, speedy, and inexpensive
determination of the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the
Parties’ Joint Motion (ECF No. 7). This action is hereby STAYED until May 13, 2026,
and all deadlines, including Defendants’ deadline to respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint, are
VACATED until further order of the Court. The Parties SHALL FILE a joint status report
on or before the conclusion of this stay if Plaintiff has not voluntarily dismissed this action
before that date.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 20, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-00542-JLS-DEB Document 8 Filed 01/20/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2