Reported / Citable
Background
Angolan nationals Carmen Berta C. De Saituma Cagiza and another plaintiff sued USCIS and other federal officials over the processing of their immigration-benefit applications. Dr. Cagiza filed a premium-processed EB-1 Form I-140 petition in January 2026, and the plaintiffs filed Forms I-485 and I-765 in April. Their original complaint challenged delays allegedly caused by DHS policies imposing an adjudication hold on applications from nationals of certain countries, including Angola.
After the suit was filed, DHS revoked the hold, and USCIS denied Dr. Cagiza’s I-140 petition on July 1. The amended complaint challenged that denial as arbitrary and capricious and continued to allege unreasonable delay in the I-485 and I-765 applications. The plaintiffs sought an emergency TRO preventing adverse action on the pending applications and requiring prompt I-765 adjudication after the I-140 dispute was resolved. Dr. Cagiza later submitted a new I-140 petition and a motion to reopen the original denial.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Christina A. Bryan recommended denying the emergency TRO. The recommendation concluded that the plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success on their APA challenge to the I-140 denial because review of an EB-1 denial is highly deferential, and USCIS need only consider the relevant facts and provide a satisfactory explanation.
The magistrate judge further concluded that the court lacks jurisdiction to impose a deadline for USCIS to adjudicate the I-765 or to compel or bar action on the I-485 and I-765. With the country-based hold revoked, the agency was not refusing a discrete action that it was legally required to take; no statute imposed a particular adjudication timetable; and the relevant immigration decisions, including their pace, are discretionary. The recommendation left the preliminary-injunction request and defendants’ motion to dismiss for prompt further proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- The opinion is a recommendation to deny a TRO, not a final district-court ruling on the merits.
- APA delay claims require a discrete agency action that a statute or binding regulation specifically requires.
- The revocation of the adjudication hold undercut the plaintiffs’ basis for compelling action on their pending applications.
Why It Matters
The recommendation underscores the narrow path for using the APA or mandamus to accelerate immigration adjudications in the Fifth Circuit. Without a specific legal deadline or a refusal to perform a required action, courts may lack jurisdiction even where applicants allege serious financial hardship.