Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Samer Charaf, a non-U.S. citizen residing in the United States, filed an I-485 application for adjustment of status on December 10, 2024, based on his lawful marriage to a U.S. citizen.
After more than one year and five months passed without a decision, Charaf filed suit pro se under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Mandamus Act to compel adjudication. The defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) deprived it of jurisdiction over Charaf’s claims. Under controlling Fifth Circuit precedent, the jurisdictional bar reaches the discretionary acts involved in deciding an adjustment application, including the timing and pace of adjudication.
Because both the APA and mandamus claims sought judicial review of USCIS’s allegedly unreasonable delay in adjudicating the I-485 application, they fell within the INA’s jurisdiction-stripping provision. The court therefore granted the Rule 12(b)(1) motion, but, because Charaf was proceeding pro se and had not yet had an opportunity to plead his best case, allowed him 28 days to file an amended complaint.
Key Takeaways
- Federal courts in the Fifth Circuit lack jurisdiction to review the pace at which USCIS adjudicates an I-485 adjustment-of-status application.
- Pleading an adjudication-delay claim under the APA or the Mandamus Act does not avoid the INA’s jurisdictional bar.
- The dismissal was accompanied by leave to amend within 28 days, although any amended pleading must establish a basis for subject-matter jurisdiction.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that applicants in the Fifth Circuit generally cannot use APA or mandamus litigation to force faster adjudication of adjustment-of-status applications. The jurisdictional bar applies not only to the ultimate adjustment decision but also to the agency’s timing in reaching it.
The order nevertheless preserves a limited opportunity for the pro se plaintiff to identify, through amendment, a claim over which the district court has jurisdiction.