As of the date of the order, the plaintiffs' applications have been pending for between 16 and 65 months. The plaintiffs amended their complaint in January 2026 to assert due process claims regarding the pace of adjudication.
The government moved to dismiss, arguing primarily that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) strips federal courts of subject matter jurisdiction over such claims. The government contended that the decision to adjudicate these applications is discretionary and therefore immune from judicial review.
The court rejected this argument, relying on its recent reasoning in *Gao v. Mullin et al.* and *Varniab v. Edlow*. The court held that while the statute bars review of the *granting* of discretionary relief, it does not strip jurisdiction over claims alleging that the agency has unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed action on non-discretionary duties.
Under the Administrative Procedure Act, agencies must proceed to conclude matters within a reasonable time. The court determined that USCIS has a non-discretionary duty to adjudicate I-485 applications, and thus the jurisdiction-stripping provision does not apply to these "pace-of-adjudication" claims.
The government also argued that the plaintiffs were improperly joined and that venue was improper for 16 of the plaintiffs who reside outside the district. The court noted that, under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1), venue is proper in a multi-plaintiff case if any plaintiff resides in the District.
The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. The order also addressed a sealing motion regarding a declaration by Devon Johnston, granting it in part and denying it in part to preserve public access to judicial records.