Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Qizer Ahmed Siddiqui and Ashjan Mohammed Mohiuddin sought to compel federal officials to adjudicate their pending Form I-485 applications to register permanent residence or adjust status. They alleged that the government had failed to decide the applications within a reasonable time.
The plaintiffs invoked the Administrative Procedure Act and the Mandamus Act. The court examined whether those statutes supplied jurisdiction despite the Immigration and Nationality Act’s restrictions on judicial review of discretionary adjustment-of-status decisions and actions.
The Court’s Holding
The court dismissed the action without prejudice because the plaintiffs had not demonstrated that the court possessed subject-matter jurisdiction. The APA does not permit review of agency action committed to agency discretion by law, and the INA makes adjustment of status discretionary while restricting judicial review of specified immigration decisions and actions.
The court also found it unclear whether the Mandamus Act could provide jurisdiction because the INA’s jurisdiction-stripping provision expressly applies notwithstanding 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Because the plaintiffs identified no statutory authority showing that the challenged government conduct was nondiscretionary, the court declined to proceed.
The court allowed the plaintiffs 28 days to refile a complaint addressing subject-matter jurisdiction and warned that failure to resolve the jurisdictional deficiency could result in dismissal with prejudice.
Key Takeaways
- A plaintiff seeking to compel adjudication of an I-485 application must establish that the challenged agency conduct is legally required rather than committed to agency discretion.
- The INA’s jurisdictional bar may foreclose claims brought under both the APA and the Mandamus Act concerning discretionary adjustment-of-status decisions or actions.
- The dismissal was without prejudice, and the plaintiffs received 28 days to refile and address the jurisdictional problem.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the threshold jurisdictional obstacle facing applicants who sue over delayed adjustment-of-status adjudications. Alleging unreasonable delay is not enough when the complaint fails to identify a mandatory, nondiscretionary agency duty that remains subject to judicial review.
The order did not resolve whether the plaintiffs’ applications had been unreasonably delayed. It instead required them to establish a statutory basis for federal jurisdiction before the merits could be considered.