Meina Xie v. John Kerry, 414 U.S. App. D.C. 287

Xie alleges DOS unlawfully delays immigrant visa reviews for certain categories; district court dismissed for lack of discrete agency action and authority; Xie relied on INA § 203(e)(1) demanding priority in filing order.
Statutory framework includes annual visa caps and country limits; EB-3 has subcategories with separate caps (EW) and a 7% country ceiling.
Xie’s petition targeted the treatment of Chinese EW vs. Chinese non-EW EB-3 cut-off dates, suggesting priority principle violation.
Record shows varied public cut-off dates by category and country, implying discretion in State’s queue management; no regulations disclosed.
District court did not discuss INA § 203(e)(1); court reversed and remanded to assess State’s interpretation and compliance with the priority rule.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether INA § 203(e)(1) creates a justiciable claim.	Xie relies on § 203(e)(1) to require priority in processing.	State asserts no mandatory action and discretion fits within APA limits.	Yes, remand to assess State’s IT and application of § 203(e)(1).
Whether Xie’s claim is governed by the Norton standard for compelled agency action.	Disparity in cut-offs violates statutory priority.	Norton allows court to avoid overbearing agency discretion.	Not dispositive; need evaluation of State’s current interpretation.
Whether State’s queue management plausibly complies with § 203(e)(1).	Current practice undermines temporal priority for EW vs non-EW.	Operational considerations permit deviations.	Remand to determine lawfulness of current approach.

Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55 (U.S. 2004) (agency action must be legally required; limits on judicial second-guessing)