Summary
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa dismissed Harshkumar Chaudhari’s action seeking employment authorization documents from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. The court held that the agency’s decision to issue employment authorization for bona fide U-visa petitioners is discretionary under 8 U.S.C. § 1184(p)(6) and therefore unreviewable under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). The opinion also cautioned against ghostwritten filings and potential unauthorized practice of law associated with a form-document service.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether USCIS's decision to issue or not issue an employment authorization document to a U-visa applicant with a pending bona fide petition is discretionary under 8 U.S.C. § 1184(p)(6).
- Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) deprives the district court of jurisdiction to review USCIS's discretionary EAD decision.
Holdings
- Under 8 U.S.C. § 1184(p)(6), the decision whether to issue employment authorization to an alien with a pending, bona fide U nonimmigrant-status application is discretionary.
- Because the EAD decision is discretionary, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars judicial review, depriving the district court of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Key quotations
“Federal courts are not courts of general jurisdiction; they have only the power that is authorized by Article III of the Constitution and the statutes enacted by Congress pursuant thereto.” (Section III)
“Here, the Court concludes that the decision to issue or not issue an EAD is firmly within the discretion of USCIS, and thus unreviewable by this Court.” (Section IV)
“For the reasons set out above, the Court dismisses with prejudice plaintiff's complaint for lack of jurisdiction.” (Section V)
Factual background
Plaintiff, an Indian citizen residing in Iowa, was the victim of an armed robbery and cooperated with law enforcement. He filed a Form I-918 U nonimmigrant-status petition and Form I-765 employment-authorization application, along with derivative applications for his spouse. USCIS issued a bona fide determination for his principal U-visa petition in December 2024, but plaintiff alleged that USCIS had not issued employment authorization documents to him or his spouse.
Procedural history
Chaudhari filed the action on June 27, 2025, seeking to compel USCIS to make a bona fide determination and issue employment authorization documents. USCIS moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), but the court initially denied that motion. In later merits briefing, Chaudhari clarified that USCIS had issued a bona fide determination in December 2024 but had not issued EADs. The court held that EAD issuance under 8 U.S.C. § 1184(p)(6) is discretionary and that judicial review is barred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), then dismissed the complaint with prejudice and closed the case.