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
- 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.
- USCIS has a nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate an I-130 petition filed by a United States citizen on behalf of a noncitizen relative.
- USCIS has a nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate an I-485 application even though the ultimate decision whether to grant adjustment of status is discretionary.
- 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.
- The plaintiffs adequately pleaded an unreasonable-delay claim to survive a motion to dismiss.
Questions Presented
- Whether the first amended complaint should be stricken as futile, superfluous, or filed in bad faith.
- 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.
- Whether the INA's jurisdictional bar for discretionary adjustment-of-status decisions precludes review of alleged agency delay.
- 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 PDFLoading document…