Northern District of California Rejects Jurisdiction-Stripping Defense in Asylee Delay Suit

The court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) does not strip subject matter jurisdiction over pace-of-adjudication claims because the agency has a non-discretionary duty to adjudicate these applications.

The suit was filed on December 15, 2025, by 19 plaintiffs against Joseph B. Edlow in his official capacity as Director of USCIS and USCIS itself. The plaintiffs amended their complaint on January 4, 2026.

The plaintiffs are citizens of different countries, each holding an approved asylee status and a pending I-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status. USCIS received these applications between November 9, 2020, and December 13, 2024.

As of the date of the order, the applications have been pending for between 16 and 65 months. The plaintiffs allege the government failed to adjudicate these applications within a reasonable time.

The government argued that the court lacked jurisdiction under the jurisdiction-stripping provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The government also raised alternative arguments regarding due process, improper joinder, and venue.

The court relied on its recent reasoning in Gao v. Mullin et al., which addressed the same jurisdictional argument in the context of a motion to dismiss. The court determined that the statutory framework and legal analysis in Gao applied directly to this case.

The court rejected the government's threshold jurisdictional challenge. It noted that the Administrative Procedure Act requires agencies to proceed to conclude matters within a reasonable time and allows courts to compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.

The court did not resolve whether Section 1252 applies to applications under Section 1159, as it found it had jurisdiction regardless of that distinction. The order addresses the motion filed on February 27, 2026.

The court also addressed the government's administrative motion to file certain materials under seal, granting it in part and denying it in part. The court stated it would avoid discussing sealed information in the interest of public access to judicial records.

The case was originally assigned to Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers but was reassigned to the undersigned magistrate judge upon the parties' consent to jurisdiction.