Asylum Applicants Sue USCIS Over Years-Long Green Card Delays — Motion to Dismiss Granted in Part, Denied in Part

Nineteen plaintiffs — citizens of different countries, each holding approved asylee status — filed suit on December 15, 2025 challenging USCIS's failure to adjudicate their Form I-485 applications to adjust status to lawful permanent resident. The oldest application in the group was filed as early as November 9, 2020; the most recent was filed as late as December 13, 2024. As of the April 15, 2026 order, the applications had been pending for between 16 and 65 months with no decision, according to the complaint's allegations, which the court accepted as true for purposes of the jurisdictional challenge.

USCIS Director Joseph B. Edlow and USCIS moved to dismiss on four grounds: (1) the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), which strips courts of jurisdiction to review discretionary decisions by the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security; (2) the plaintiffs failed to state a due process claim; (3) the plaintiffs were improperly joined; and (4) sixteen plaintiffs who reside outside the district were subject to dismissal for improper venue.

The court held that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) does not strip it of jurisdiction over what it characterized as pace-of-adjudication claims. The court drew on its own recent decisions in *Varniab v. Edlow* and *Gao v. Mullin* for the proposition that USCIS has a non-discretionary duty to adjudicate I-485 applications, meaning the delay claims fall outside the statute's bar on review of discretionary agency action. The government raised the same jurisdictional argument, citing the same authorities, as it had pressed in *Gao*, and the court applied the same reasoning in rejecting it.

The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. The order does not detail the full disposition of each ground — the court noted it avoids discussing sealed information submitted by the government in support of the motion — and the source packet as provided does not resolve which specific grounds were granted and which were denied.

The case was originally assigned to Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers and reassigned to the magistrate judge upon all parties' consent to magistrate-judge jurisdiction. The plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint on January 4, 2026. The government's motion was filed February 27, 2026; opposition followed March 5; reply was filed March 27; and a motion for leave to file a sur-reply was filed April 2, 2026.