877 F.3d 272
7th Cir.2017Background
- Ramirez, a Guatemalan national stabbed in 2014, filed Form I-918 for U nonimmigrant status on Feb. 5, 2015; he seeks placement on the U-visa waiting list.
- Congress caps annual U-visas at 10,000, creating a backlog and a two-step process: (1) placement on the waiting list; (2) final U-visa adjudication. Pending placement does not confer deferred action or work authorization.
- USCIS backlog grew sharply (from ~21,138 in 2009 to ~177,340 pending by 2017), and until Aug. 2016 one service center handled all U petitions.
- Ramirez sued in Aug. 2016 in district court for writ of mandamus and, alternatively, relief under the APA, alleging an unreasonable delay in adjudication to be placed on the waiting list.
- The district court dismissed both claims for failure to state a claim; Ramirez appealed.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding no basis to order expedited adjudication given (a) lack of a statutory timeframe, (b) no facts showing Ramirez’s delay was distinguishable from other petitioners, and (c) USCIS’s backlog and remedial measures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mandamus: whether court may compel immediate adjudication/placement on U waiting list | Ramirez: delay is unreasonable; he has a right to timely adjudication and mandamus is appropriate | Defendants: no basis to skip queue; adjudication order based on filing date; no special circumstances shown | Denied — Ramirez failed to show a clear right to immediate relief or facts distinguishing him from others in the queue; no mandamus relief granted |
| APA: whether agency action is unlawfully withheld/unreasonably delayed | Ramirez: APA requires agency to conclude matters within a reasonable time; his wait is unreasonable | Defendants: no statutory timeframe for processing; large backlog and recent agency steps to mitigate delay make current wait reasonable | Denied — no unreasonable delay shown given backlog and USCIS’s ongoing corrective measures |
Key Cases Cited
- Volling v. Kurtz Paramedic Servs., Inc., 840 F.3d 378 (7th Cir. 2016) (standard of review for motions to dismiss)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: plausibility)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard and plausibility framework)
- Kubiak v. City of Chicago, 810 F.3d 476 (7th Cir. 2016) (accept well-pleaded facts and draw inferences for plaintiff on motion to dismiss)
- Iddir v. I.N.S., 301 F.3d 492 (7th Cir. 2002) (mandamus relief and requirement that agency adjudicate applications within a reasonable time)