Federal Court Holds INA Jurisdiction-Stripping Provision Doesn't Block Suits Over USCIS Green-Card Adjudication Delays

Krishnan Narayan and his wife Sathya Dorairajan filed this action on December 26, 2025, after USCIS failed to adjudicate their I-485 applications. They had filed those applications concurrently with I-526E immigrant petitions on March 10, 2025. USCIS approved the I-526E petitions on August 15, 2025. As of the April 16, 2026 order, the I-485 applications had been pending for 13 months, with 8 months elapsed since the petition approvals. The couple sued Joseph B. Edlow in his official capacity as USCIS Director and USCIS itself, arguing the agency had failed to timely adjudicate their applications.

The government's sole argument on the motion to dismiss was that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) strips the court of subject-matter jurisdiction to compel adjudication of I-485 applications. Magistrate Judge Susan Van Keulen rejected that argument, holding that defendants have a non-discretionary duty to adjudicate I-485 applications and that the jurisdiction-stripping provision therefore does not apply to pace-of-adjudication claims.

The ruling incorporates by reference the court's earlier reasoning in Gao v. Mullin et al., No. 25-cv-01479-SVK, decided April 8, 2026, which itself built on Varniab v. Edlow, No. 25-cv-10602-SVK, decided February 20, 2026. The court noted that the government raised precisely the same argument, citing the same authorities, as it had in Gao. The only factual distinction between this case and Gao was the length of time the EB-5-based I-485 applications had been pending.

The court also cited Wang v. Edlow, No. 25-cv-10689-SVK, decided April 15, 2026, for the proposition that while the length of time an application has been pending without action may be cause for granting or denying a motion to dismiss on 12(b)(6) grounds, it does not change the subject-matter jurisdiction analysis.

Because the court resolved the motion on the Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) question, it declined to reach the plaintiffs' alternative argument that the APA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 555(b) and 706(1), combined with the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361, independently confer jurisdiction.

On a collateral dispute over the government's reply brief, the court addressed five new arguments the government raised on reply. It denied as moot the arguments concerning whether Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars the due process claim and whether USCIS timing and sequencing decisions are discretionary, in light of its ruling under that provision. It also denied as moot the argument that the APA and Mandamus Act do not independently confer jurisdiction, having declined to reach that issue. The court struck the remaining two arguments — that plaintiffs failed to plead a protected liberty or property interest and that the due process claim is foreclosed under Na Li v. Chertoff and Munoz v. Ashcroft — because they were raised for the first time on reply, citing Zamani v. Carnes, 491 F.3d 990, 997 (9th Cir. 2007). The court noted the government may raise those challenges at a later stage. The government's answer to the complaint is due no later than May 7, 2026.