Ahmad Bin Nasrullah v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Director

Summary

The court grants in part and denies in part the defendant’s motion to dismiss an action concerning delays in adjudicating the plaintiff’s U-visa petition. It dismisses the claim challenging delay in a bona fide determination as jurisdictionally barred, but permits claims concerning the withholding or unreasonable delay of a waiting-list decision to proceed. The court also cautions the plaintiff and the form-document provider regarding ghostwritten filings and directs the defendant to answer the remaining claims by April 17, 2026.

Holdings

1. The court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claim seeking a bona fide determination because the decision to grant employment authorization in connection with a pending bona fide U-visa petition is discretionary and falls within the jurisdiction-stripping provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).
2. The court has jurisdiction to review claims that USCIS unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed a U-visa waiting-list decision because placement of eligible petitioners on the waiting list is nondiscretionary and is not exempted from review by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).
3. A U-visa petitioner is not legally required to receive a bona fide determination before becoming entitled to a waiting-list decision; the two tracks are legally separate under the governing statute and regulation.
4. Plaintiff's claims alleging unlawful withholding and unreasonable delay of a waiting-list decision are ripe for judicial review.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court had subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's APA claim seeking to compel a bona fide determination and related employment authorization or deferred action.
2. Whether USCIS's alleged withholding or unreasonable delay of a U-visa waiting-list decision was reviewable despite the jurisdiction-stripping provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).
3. Whether Plaintiff's waiting-list claims were unripe because USCIS had not completed the bona fide-determination process.
4. Whether the court should address concerns regarding Plaintiff's use of a purchased form complaint and warn against future ghostwritten filings.

Disposition

other