Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin grants the respondents’ motion to dismiss and dismisses Harsh Patel’s petition for a writ of mandamus. Patel sought an order requiring USCIS to place his pending U visa petition on the waiting list or conduct a bona fide determination and issue work authorization. The court addresses subject-matter jurisdiction and Article III redressability, as well as the venue and failure-to-state-a-claim arguments.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Patel established Article III standing, particularly redressability, for claims seeking an order compelling USCIS to place him on the U-visa waiting list, conduct a bona fide determination, or issue work authorization.
- Whether the court could reach respondents' venue, Administrative Procedure Act, and mandamus arguments after concluding that Patel lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
- Whether the petition should be dismissed without prejudice and without leave to amend.
Holdings
- Patel failed to establish Article III standing because he did not show a substantial likelihood that the requested relief would redress his alleged injury—the denial of an opportunity to obtain work authorization. USCIS retained discretion over the relevant determinations and work authorization, and Patel made no showing that a favorable order would likely result in work authorization or a bona fide determination.
- Because respondents raised a facial challenge to the petition's jurisdictional allegations, the court accepted well-pleaded facts as true and drew reasonable inferences in Patel's favor, but Patel still bore the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction.
- Once the court determined that Patel lacked standing and therefore that subject-matter jurisdiction was absent, it could not decide the respondents' alternative venue, APA, or mandamus arguments.
- The petition was dismissed without prejudice but without leave to amend.
Key quotations
“The petitioner has made no showing regarding redressability, or standing, or Article III jurisdiction.” (Section II.C)
“The court ORDERS that the petition is DISMISSED without prejudice and without leave to amend.” (Section III)
Factual background
Harsh Patel, an Indian citizen residing in Milwaukee without legal status, alleged that he was robbed at gunpoint in Chicago in March 2024 and cooperated with law enforcement. He filed a Form I-918 petition for U nonimmigrant status in November 2024 and alleged that USCIS had neither adjudicated the petition nor communicated with him by the time he filed this action in May 2025. He sought placement on the U-visa waiting list or a bona fide determination, along with work authorization.
Procedural history
The petitioner filed a mandamus petition on May 14, 2025, alleging that USCIS had not acted on his Form I-918 U-visa petition filed in November 2024. Respondents moved to dismiss for improper venue, lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and standing, and failure to state a claim. The court considered the petitioner's untimely opposition brief but granted the motion to dismiss for lack of Article III standing and dismissed the petition without prejudice and without leave to amend.