The case involves 19 plaintiffs who are citizens of various countries and who hold approved asylee status. They filed suit against Joseph B. Edlow, the Director of USCIS, and the agency itself, alleging that the government failed to adjudicate their I-485 Applications to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status within a reasonable time.
The plaintiffs’ applications were filed on different dates, ranging from November 9, 2020, to December 13, 2024. As of the date of the order, the applications had been pending for between 16 and 65 months. The plaintiffs amended their complaint in January 2026 to clarify these allegations.
The government argued that the court lacked jurisdiction under the jurisdiction-stripping provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act, specifically 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). The government contended that this statute bars judicial review of decisions or actions where the authority is specified to be in the discretion of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security.
The court rejected this argument, relying on its recent reasoning in Gao v. Mullin. The court determined that while the decision to grant adjustment of status is discretionary, the duty to adjudicate the application is not. Therefore, claims regarding unreasonable delay or pace of adjudication do not fall within the jurisdictional bar for discretionary relief.
The government also raised alternative arguments, including that the plaintiffs failed to state a due process claim, that the plaintiffs were improperly joined, and that venue was improper for 16 of the plaintiffs who reside outside the district.
The court addressed the joinder and venue issues together. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1), venue is proper in a multi-plaintiff case if any plaintiff resides in the district. Because the court found that joinder was proper, it also found that venue was proper for all plaintiffs, including those residing outside the Northern District.
The court granted the motion to dismiss only to the extent that it dismissed the due process claims for failure to state a claim. The court denied the motion to dismiss the pace-of-adjudication claims and the jurisdictional challenge. The case will proceed on the remaining claims.