490 F.Supp.3d 86
D.D.C.2020Background
- Andres Garcia Uranga filed a Form I-918 (U‑visa) and requested Employment Authorization Documents (EAD) on June 23, 2016; the petition and EAD request remained pending for over four years.
- Uranga alleges he is a crime victim who cooperated with law enforcement; he was later detained and faced reinstatement of a prior removal order, prompting this suit (filed Feb. 21, 2020) seeking declaratory, mandamus, and injunctive relief to compel agency action on (a) U‑visa waitlist eligibility and (b) EAD / interim work authorization.
- Defendants (USCIS, DHS and officials) moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. The Court granted the motion in part and denied it in part.
- The Court held it lacks jurisdiction to review claims challenging the agency’s discretionary decision whether to grant EADs under 8 U.S.C. § 1184(p)(6), and dismissed related counts.
- The Court found (1) it had jurisdiction to review delay in determining waitlist eligibility but, applying TRAC factors and D.C. Circuit precedent about queue‑jumping and competing priorities, dismissed the unreasonable‑delay claim on the merits; and (2) it had jurisdiction and stated a claim for failure to provide interim work authorization under the 2011 version of 8 C.F.R. § 274a.13(d).
- Plaintiff’s APA challenge to the 2017 repeal of the 90‑day interim‑EAD rule (notice‑and‑comment) was dismissed for failure to oppose and for lack of factual support.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IIRIRA §§1252(g) and 1252(a)(5) bar district‑court review of these claims | Uranga seeks review of agency delay and nonaction, not to revisit the removal order; §1252 bars only challenges to commencement/adjudication/execution of removal | Defendants contend plaintiff's suit arises from ongoing removal proceedings and is thus barred | Court: §1252(g) and §1252(a)(5) do not bar these claims (Reno and Regents cited) |
| Whether court has jurisdiction to review agency delay/failure to act on EADs under 8 U.S.C. §1184(p)(6) | Uranga asks court to compel a determination whether his pending application is “bona fide” and thus entitles him to EAD | Defendants: §1184(p)(6) leaves EAD issuance to agency discretion; §1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) precludes review of discretionary decisions; no nondiscretionary duty to determine „bona fide“ status | Court: Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — EAD decision is discretionary and not a discrete, mandatory duty |
| Whether agency unreasonably delayed determining U‑visa waitlist eligibility (APA and mandamus; TRAC factors) | Uranga: 4+ year delay violates APA; 8 U.S.C. §1571(b) expresses Congress’s expectation of 180‑day processing | Defendants: USCIS processes by filing order; massive backlog and resource allocation are legitimate competing priorities; judicial relief would impermissibly let plaintiff jump the queue | Court: Has jurisdiction to review eligibility delay, but under TRAC and D.C. Circuit precedent (queue‑jumping/competing priorities) dismissal on merits — delay unreasonable but cannot order adjudication that would displace other applicants |
| Whether 2011 regulation requiring adjudication within 90 days (and mandatory interim EAD) applies and whether USCIS unlawfully withheld that discrete action | Uranga: He applied in 2016 when 2011 rule was operative, so he vested a right to adjudication within 90 days and interim EAD if no adjudication occurred | Defendants: The 2011 90‑day clock did not start until threshold determination of underlying benefit; the 2017 repeal governs | Court: 2011 regulation applies to Uranga (Landgraf/Vartelas retroactivity analysis); USCIS had a discrete mandatory duty and plaintiff states an APA claim — these counts survive |
| Whether repeal of the 2011 90‑day rule violated APA notice‑and‑comment | Uranga alleges repeal lacked notice‑and‑comment | Defendants point to Federal Register notice and rulemaking record | Court: Claim dismissed — plaintiff failed to oppose and pled only conclusorily; record shows notice and comment occurred |
Key Cases Cited
- Reno v. Am.-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471 (1999) (§1252(g) is narrow and covers only commencement/adjudication/execution of removal proceedings)
- Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of California, 140 S. Ct. 1891 (2020) (reaffirming the limited scope of §1252(g))
- Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness All., 542 U.S. 55 (2004) (APA §706(1) permits relief only for discrete agency actions required to be taken)
- Telecomms. Rsch. & Action Ctr. v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (TRAC six‑factor test for unreasonable delay)
- In re Barr Labs., 930 F.2d 72 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (courts should not reorder agency priorities to put one plaintiff ahead of others)
- Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Council, Inc. v. Norton, 336 F.3d 1094 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (emphasizing competing priorities factor in delay cases)
- INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001) (discussing when eligibility standards can create a right to a ruling in immigration context)
- Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (1994) (retroactivity framework for statutes and rules)
- Vartelas v. Holder, 566 U.S. 257 (2012) (applying Landgraf to agency action and vested rights)
- United States v. Monzel, 641 F.3d 528 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (mandamus threshold requirements)