Reported / Citable
Background
Anran Sun, a Chinese national, filed an I-526E petition (Form for eligible foreign investors seeking EB-5 classification) with USCIS on February 27, 2024. Sun claimed to have invested $800,000 in FBRG Hospitality Developers LP, a rural project eligible for the reduced investment threshold under the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program. After 27 months elapsed with no action on her petition, Sun filed suit on March 13, 2026, against USCIS Director Joseph B. Edlow and other agency officials, alleging unreasonable delay under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
Sun argued that USCIS had violated its obligations under the Reform and Integrity Act of 2022, which states that USCIS should have “the goal of completing adjudications . . . not later than 120 days.” She contended the delay was arbitrary and violated the APA and the Federal Mandamus Act. The Government moved to dismiss under Federal Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of jurisdiction, Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, or alternatively, for summary judgment under Rule 56(a).
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the Government’s motion to dismiss, holding that Sun cannot compel USCIS action absent a “specific unequivocal command in a federal statute or binding regulation.” The court found no statute, regulation, or case law imposing a mandatory deadline on USCIS to adjudicate I-526E petitions. The court noted that Sun herself conceded the 120-day timeframe in the Reform and Integrity Act is framed as a “goal” rather than a binding deadline, and the statute contains no consequence for missing it.
The court rejected Sun’s argument that the delay was unreasonable as a matter of law, noting that the Government had presented statistics showing over 80% of I-526E applications are adjudicated within 29.5 months, and Sun’s application had been pending only 24 months at the time of filing. The court declined to create or infer a judicially-enforceable deadline where Congress had not established one, applying Fifth Circuit precedent holding that agencies retain considerable discretion over processing timelines absent explicit statutory requirements.
Key Takeaways
- USCIS faces no statutory or regulatory deadline for adjudicating EB-5 investor petitions; aspirational goals in federal law do not create judicially-enforceable obligations.
- Courts cannot compel agency action without identifying a specific, unequivocal statutory command; processing delays alone do not violate the APA.
- The Reform and Integrity Act of 2022’s 120-day goal for adjudication is aspirational only and carries no legal consequence for non-compliance.
- Federal agencies retain substantial discretion over the timing of administrative proceedings when Congress has not imposed explicit deadlines.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies that EB-5 investors cannot rely on APA delay claims to force USCIS adjudication of their petitions. With thousands of EB-5 applications in USCIS’s inventory and processing times often extending two years or more, this ruling forecloses a potential litigation strategy for applicants frustrated by agency processing timelines. The holding reinforces broader administrative law principles limiting judicial review of agency timing decisions.
The decision also signals that Congress must explicitly establish statutory deadlines if it wishes to impose binding time constraints on agency adjudications. The court’s refusal to treat aspirational “goals” as enforceable deadlines may inform how future legislation addressing agency processing delays is drafted and interpreted. Immigration practitioners representing EB-5 investors will need to manage client expectations about processing timelines without the prospect of judicial intervention based on delay claims.