Judge Vacates Hearing in Immigration Case After Colleague Rules Government Must Act on Green Card Applications

The case involves Harsh Motwani, who filed suit in December 2025 challenging the government's failure to adjudicate his I-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status within 'a reasonable time.' The I-485 application is the primary vehicle for foreign nationals already in the United States to obtain permanent residence, commonly known as a green card.

The government moved to dismiss in March, arguing that federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over pace of adjudication claims under the Immigration and Nationality Act's jurisdiction-stripping provision at 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(b)(ii). That provision generally bars judicial review of certain discretionary immigration decisions.

But Judge Westmore found compelling a recent ruling by Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen in a similar case, Gao v. Mullin, which denied the government's motion to dismiss. As Judge Westmore wrote, 'there is a material difference between reviewing a final order for immigration benefits—which is discretionary and not reviewable—and reviewing whether the Government is performing its mandatory duty to act on an I-485 application, rather than delaying such action indefinitely.'

The distinction highlights a key legal issue in immigration law: while courts generally cannot review the substance of discretionary immigration decisions, they may retain authority to ensure the government actually processes applications rather than letting them languish indefinitely. The government's motion was set for hearing on April 16.

Rather than proceed with oral argument, Judge Westmore ordered both sides to file supplemental briefs addressing the Gao decision by April 22 for defendants and April 29 for the plaintiff's response, with a five-page limit for each brief. The court will then decide whether to reset the motion for hearing or rule on the papers.

The judge also suggested an alternative path 'in the interest of judicial economy,' inviting the parties to meet and confer about withdrawing the motion to dismiss entirely and proceeding directly to cross-motions for summary judgment on the merits of whether the government has unreasonably delayed processing Motwani's application.

The ruling reflects growing judicial scrutiny of lengthy delays in immigration processing, particularly as application backlogs have swelled in recent years. If courts consistently find jurisdiction over pace-of-adjudication claims, it could provide a new avenue for immigrants to compel action on stalled applications.