Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Karthik Kumar Nichenametla, a citizen of India residing in the United States, filed an I-485 application to adjust his status on March 21, 2025. He also filed an application for a derivative beneficiary. After eight months passed without an adjudication, he filed suit on November 26, 2025.
Proceeding pro se, Nichenametla invoked the Administrative Procedure Act and the Mandamus Act to compel U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to adjudicate his application. USCIS and the federal officials sued in their official capacities moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). After that motion was filed, Nichenametla moved under Rule 41(a)(2) to dismiss his own suit voluntarily.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the defendants’ Rule 12(b)(1) motion, holding that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over Nichenametla’s APA and Mandamus Act claims. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), courts cannot review decisions or actions that the Immigration and Nationality Act commits to agency discretion. Relying on Fifth Circuit precedent, the court concluded that this jurisdictional bar covers the discrete acts and timing involved in adjustment-of-status adjudications, including the pace at which USCIS processes an I-485 application.
Because Nichenametla sought judicial review of alleged unreasonable delay and unlawful withholding in the adjudication of his application, his claims fell within the INA’s jurisdiction-stripping provision. The court addressed jurisdiction before considering voluntary dismissal and therefore denied Nichenametla’s Rule 41(a)(2) motion as moot. Because he was proceeding pro se and had not yet received an opportunity to plead his best case, the court allowed him 28 days to file an amended complaint.
Key Takeaways
- The INA deprived the district court of jurisdiction to review APA and mandamus claims challenging USCIS’s pace in adjudicating an I-485 application.
- The jurisdictional bar applies notwithstanding the Mandamus Act and encompasses the timing of discretionary adjustment-of-status actions.
- The court dismissed the claims, denied the plaintiff’s later voluntary-dismissal motion as moot, and granted 28 days to amend.
Why It Matters
The decision applies binding Fifth Circuit authority to foreclose federal district-court review of claims seeking to accelerate USCIS’s adjudication of an adjustment-of-status application. Applicants alleging unreasonable I-485 delays cannot establish jurisdiction merely by framing the challenge under the APA or the Mandamus Act.
The order nevertheless leaves Nichenametla a limited opportunity to amend, while warning that defendants may seek further relief if the amended pleading still fails to identify a claim within the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.