Alber Delcid Sandoval, et al. v. Terri Robinson, et al.

Sandoval · United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, Abingdon Division · June 23, 2026 · No. 1:26CV00029

Summary

The court denied the defendants’ motions to strike and to dismiss an action challenging USCIS’s alleged delay in adjudicating an I-130 petition and I-485 application. It held that USCIS has a nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate the forms and that the alleged delay is not a discretionary decision or action barred from review under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The court further held that the plaintiffs had sufficiently pleaded an unreasonable-delay claim to proceed beyond the motion-to-dismiss stage.

Holdings

  1. The first amended complaint should not be stricken because plaintiffs were entitled to amend once as a matter of course under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B), and the amended pleading added factual allegations providing context for the claims.
  2. USCIS has a nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate an I-130 petition filed by a United States citizen on behalf of a noncitizen relative.
  3. USCIS has a nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate an I-485 application even though the ultimate decision whether to grant adjustment of status is discretionary.
  4. The alleged delay in adjudicating the plaintiffs' I-130 petition and I-485 application is not a 'decision or action' under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B), and therefore the INA does not bar judicial review of the delay claim.
  5. The plaintiffs adequately pleaded an unreasonable-delay claim to survive a motion to dismiss.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the first amended complaint should be stricken as futile, superfluous, or filed in bad faith.
  2. Whether the court has subject-matter jurisdiction under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Mandamus Act over claims challenging USCIS's delay in adjudicating an I-130 petition and I-485 application.
  3. Whether the INA's jurisdictional bar for discretionary adjustment-of-status decisions precludes review of alleged agency delay.
  4. Whether the plaintiffs adequately pleaded that USCIS's delay was unreasonable at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (24)

  • Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 243-44 (4th Cir. 1999)(followed)
  • Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009)(followed)
  • Mylan Laboratories, Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir. 1993)(followed)
  • Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)(followed)
  • Cunningham v. General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc., 888 F.3d 640, 649 (4th Cir. 2018)(followed)
  • Kerns v. United States, 585 F.3d 187, 192-93 (4th Cir. 2009)(followed)
  • Evans v. B.F. Perkins Co., 166 F.3d 642, 647 (4th Cir. 1999)(followed)
  • Dong v. Chertoff, 513 F. Supp. 2d 1158, 1162 n.3 (N.D. Cal. 2007)(followed)
  • Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55, 64 (2004)(followed)
  • In re First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Durham, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 24.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…