Favorable Decisions
District Courts
California
Singh v. Still, No. 06-2458, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16334 (N.D. Cal. 2007). The court found mandamus jurisdiction to order adjudication of plaintiff's Adjustment of Status Application (Form I-485). The court held that there was unreasonable delay in the adjudication of plaintiff's applications and that plaintiff had no other remedy. At the time the court issued its decision, plaintiff's asylum-based I-485 application had been pending for more than seven years and his marriage-based I-485 application had been pending for almost four years.
Aboushaban v. Mueller, No. 06-1280, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81076 (N.D. Cal. 2006). The court found jurisdiction over the mandamus action and ordered USCIS to complete adjudication of plaintiff's Adjustment of Status Application (Form I-485). Plaintiff's application had been pending for approximately eight years when the court issued its decision.
Razaq v. Poulos, No. 06-2461, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 770 (N.D. Cal. 2007). The court found jurisdiction over the mandamus action to compel adjudication of a Relative Petition (Form I-130), finding that the agency has a ministerial duty to process plaintiff's petition under 8 U.S.C. §1154(b). However, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, finding that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the agency's inaction was "clearly unreasonable." The court similarly denied the government's cross motion for summary judgment, finding that the agency failed to demonstrate that its inaction was "reasonable." The court invited plaintiffs to file an amended motion for summary judgment if the government failed to resolve plaintiff's I-130 petition within 28 days of the court's order. Plaintiff's petition was pending for over two years at the time the court issued its decision.
Connecticut
Salehian v. Novak, No. 06-459, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77028, (D. Conn. 2006). The court found jurisdiction over the mandamus action and held that defendants must provide an explanation for the delay resulting from security checks or adjudicate plaintiffs' Adjustment of Status Applications (Form I-485). The court denied defendants' motion to dismiss and ordered plaintiffs to file a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs' applications had been pending for longer than two years when they filed their mandamus action.
Florida
Tjin-A-Tam v. United States Dep't of Homeland Sec., No. 05-23339, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17994 (S.D. Fla. 2007). The court denied the government's motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment. The court found jurisdiction over the mandamus action to compel DHS to adjudicate plaintiffs' Adjustment of Status Application (Form I-485). The plaintiff's application had been pending for longer than three years at the time the court issued its decision.
Minnesota
Haidari v. Frazier, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 (D. Minn. 2006). The court found jurisdiction over the mandamus action and ordered USCIS to complete its adjudication of plaintiffs' Adjustment of Status Application (Form I-485) within 30 days and to inform the court of its decisions. The court stated that it would maintain jurisdiction over the case to ensure that USCIS complied with its order. At the time the three plaintiffs filed their mandamus suit, two applications had been pending for four years and one had been pending for six years.
New York
Am. Acad. of Religion v. Chertoff, 463 F. Supp. 2d 400 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). The court found jurisdiction to compel adjudication of plaintiff's nonimmigrant visa application and ordered the agency to issue a decision on the application within 90 days. The application had been pending for approximately four months when plaintiff filed this action.
Pennsylvania
Li Duan v. Zamberry, No. 06-1351, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12697 (W.D. Pa. 2007). The court found subject matter jurisdiction over the mandamus action to compel plaintiff's Adjustment of Status Application (Form I-485) and denied defendants' motion to dismiss. The court held that the 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) does not divest the court of jurisdiction because the "pace" of adjudication is not the type of discretionary "action" contemplated by the statute. The court found that the weight of authority supported a finding that defendants had a nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate an adjustment of status application and therefore, mandamus jurisdiction was appropriate. Plaintiff's application was pending for approximately sixteen months when the courts issued its decision.
Texas
Valenzuela v. Kehl, No. 05-1764, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61054 (N.D. Tex. 2006). The court found jurisdiction over the mandamus action to compel adjudication of a Relative Petition (Form I-130). The court denied defendants' motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff's petition had been pending for approximately five years when he filed his lawsuit.
Adverse Decisions
Courts of Appeals
Castillo v. Ridge, 445 F.3d 1057 (8th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff appealed a Nebraska district court's dismissal of his mandamus suit. Plaintiff initially brought a mandamus action in the district court to compel the government to adjudicate his Adjustment of Status Application. (Form I-485). After filing the mandamus action, plaintiff's divorce from his wife became final. The district court granted the government's motion for summary judgment, holding that 1) plaintiff's divorce automatically revoked his visa petition under 8 C.F.R. §245.1(c)(4) rendering him ineligible for adjustment, and 2) plaintiff was not eligible for adjustment without a waiver of a child abuse conviction under INA §212 (h). The court of appeals upheld the district court's ruling. The court of appeals reasoned that because the grant of a §212(h) waiver is discretionary, plaintiff did not have a clear and indisputable right to a grant of his adjustment application. Furthermore, in dicta, the court noted that the six month delay in adjudicating the 212(h) waiver was not particularly lengthy.
District Courts
California
Li v. Chertoff, __ F. Supp. 2d __, No. 06-02625, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29776 (S.D. Cal. 2007). Plaintiff filed a mandamus action to compel adjudication of an Adjustment of Status Application (Form I-485). The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that the court did not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief. The court reasoned that 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and § 1255 demonstrate Congress's intent to preclude courts from reviewing discretionary decisions or actions of USCIS regarding I-485 applications. Plaintiff's application had been pending for over three years when she filed her complaint.
Florida
Zahani v. Neufeld, No. 05-1857, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56416 (M.D. Fla. 2006). Plaintiff filed a mandamus action to compel adjudication of an Adjustment of Status Application (Form I-485). The court found subject matter jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. § 1331 in conjunction with the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701, but denied mandamus relief. The court held that that USCIS decisions to adjudicate or to withhold adjudication under 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(18) are discretionary and that FBI background checks are justifiable delays. Plaintiff filed the mandamus complaint more than three years after the adjustment of status application was filed.
Gemini Realty, Inc. v. Gonzalez, No. 06-786, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74194 (M.D. Fla. 2006). Plaintiff filed a mandamus action to compel adjudication of a Specialty Visa (Form I-129). The court held that mandamus relief was not available because plaintiff had no clear right to relief and defendants had no clear, nondiscretionary duty to act. The court further held that USCIS exercised its permissible discretion to withhold adjudication of a visa petition or undertake an investigation relating to visa eligibility under 8 C.F.R. § 103.2.
Grinberg v. Swacina, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19684 (S.D. Fla. 2007), appeal docketed, No. 07-11594 (11th Cir. Apr. 17, 2007). Plaintiff filed a mandamus action to compel adjudication of an Adjustment of Status Application (Form I-485). The court found that petitioners lacked subject matter jurisdiction, interpreting 8 U.S.C. 1255(a) to preclude judicial review of any "decision or action" of the Attorney General in immigration matters which includes the "pace at which immigration decisions are made." In addition, the court reasoned that Congress did not intend to confer jurisdiction because it did not provide a time frame in which adjustment of status applications must be adjudicated. The plaintiffs' applications had been pending for over 5 years when the court issued its decision.
Massachussetts
Gebre v. Rice, 462 F. Supp. 2d 186 (D. Mass. 2006). The court declined to grant mandamus relief to compel the grant of a diversity visa to plaintiff's wife. The court found that the statute was unambiguous and prohibited the issuance of a diversity visa after the fiscal year had ended.
Minnesota
Chaudry v. Chertoff, No. 06-1303, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66842 (D. Minn. 2006). Plaintiff filed a mandamus action to compel adjudication of an Adjustment of Status Application (Form I-485). The court reasoned that 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) allows for criminal and national security background checks to ensure eligibility for adjustment of status and therefore, the plaintiff had not established a clear and undisputable right to immediate adjudication. The applicant's petition had been pending for approximately 17 months when the court issued its decision.
Missouri
Jabr v. Chertoff, No. 06-543, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84588 (E.D. Mo. 2006). Plaintiffs filed a mandamus to compel adjudication of an Adjustment of Status Application (Form I-485) and a Relative Petition (Form I-130). The court held that background checks must be completed before a decision can be made on the applications. Thus, because plaintiffs do not have a right to forego the required background checks, they had not established that they have a clear and undisputable right to the relief sought or that the defendants have a nondiscretionary duty to honor that right. The applications had been pending for approximately three years when the court issued its decision.
New Jersey
Feng Li v. Gonzalez, No. 06-5911, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32608 (D.N.J. 2007). Plaintiffs brought a mandamus action to compel USCIS to adjudicate their Adjustment of Status Applications (Forms I-485). The court held that immigration officials did not have a nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate plaintiffs' application because Congress did not specify a certain time period in which immigration officials must act to adjudicate the application, the regulations allow defendants to exercise discretion throughout the application process, and defendants may withhold adjudication. Plaintiffs' applications had been pending for approximately two and a half years when they filed their complaint.
Serrano v. Quarantillo, No. 06-5221, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26310 (D.N.J. 2007). Plaintiff brought a mandamus action to compel USCIS to adjudicate his Adjustment of Status Application (Form I-485). The court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) removed plaintiff's petition from the court's jurisdiction because it prevented review of discretionary agency decisions. Plaintiff filed his I-485 application just over three years before the court issued its decision.
New York
Keane v. Chertoff, 419 F. Supp. 2d 597 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). Plaintiff brought a mandamus action to compel USCIS to rescind a decision denying plaintiff's Adjustment of Status Application (Form I-485) and to reschedule an interview for adjustment of status. The court held that there was no subject matter jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief because USCIS did not have a clearly defined, peremptory duty to rescind the denial of plaintiff's application and reschedule an interview, and USCIS had acted on plaintiff's application and informed her of that action.
Texas
Maringo v. Gonzales, No. 06-3397, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80106 (S.D. Tex. 2006). Plaintiff brought a mandamus action to compel a grant of an Adjustment of Status Application) (Form I-485). The court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because it did not have jurisdiction to review agency decisions on adjustment applications under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) and because the plaintiff was "inadmissible" under § 212(a)(6)(C).
Martinez v. Chertoff, No. 06-27, (E.D. Tex. 2006). Plaintiff brought a mandamus action to adjudicate an Adjustment of Status Application (Form I-485). The court held that there was no mandamus jurisdiction because the application was denied and because the plaintiff had an alternative remedy: to raise her claims before an immigration judge if the agency initiated removal proceedings.
Mustafa v. Pasquerell, No. 05-658, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8047 (W.D. Tex. 2006). Plaintiffs brought a mandamus action to compel adjudication of an Adjustment of Status Application (Form I-485) and a Relative Petition (Form I-130). The court found that plaintiffs did not have a clear right to adjudication because USCIS has discretion to perform background checks under 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(7) and withhold adjudication under 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(18), and there is no governing time limit. Plaintiffs' petition and application had been pending for approximately four years when the court issued its decision.
Wilkinson-Okotie v. United States Dep't of Homeland Sec., No. 05-3978, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69298 (S.D. Tex. 2006). Plaintiff brought a mandamus action to compel adjudication of an Adjustment of Status Application (Form I-485). The court found that mandamus relief was improper because only an immigration judge, not USCIS, had the authority to adjudicate an application for adjustment of status when the respondent was subject to a final order of removal.
Virginia
Safadi v. Howard, 466 F. Supp. 2d 696 (E.D. Va. 2006). Plaintiff brought a mandamus action to compel adjudication of an Adjustment of Status Application (Form I-485). The court found that mandamus was improper because USCIS did not owe the plaintiff a clear, nondiscretionary duty to process his adjustment of status application by any particular date. Plaintiff's application had been pending for approximately four years when he filed suit.