Samuel Jackson and Einat Jackson v. Joseph Edlow, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania denies and dismisses pro se petitioners’ motion for a preliminary injunction and petition for a writ of mandamus seeking adjudication of an I-485 application and related immigration applications. The court concludes that the petitioners cannot show a clear nondiscretionary duty because the government’s evidence indicates that no application is pending and prior filings were approved, denied, administratively closed, or rejected.

Holdings

1. Petitioners were not entitled to a preliminary injunction because they could not establish a likelihood of success on the merits of their mandamus petition.
2. Mandamus relief was inappropriate because petitioners failed to identify a clear nondiscretionary duty owed by any respondent, and the absence of a pending application defeated the mandamus claim.

Questions Presented

1. Whether petitioners were entitled to a preliminary injunction compelling USCIS to adjudicate Einat Jackson's immigration applications.
2. Whether petitioners could obtain mandamus relief absent a pending application and a clear nondiscretionary duty owed by the respondents.

Disposition

dismissed