Schwebel v. Crandall, 967 F.3d 96

In June 2007 (age 17) Schwebel's attorney mailed a Form I-485 on her behalf; USCIS received it June 27, 2007 (four days before the July 1 filing window). The August 17, 2007 visa filing cutoff passed while USCIS took no action.
USCIS policy in 2007 required manual rejection and notice for prematurely filed employment-based I-485s (8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(7)); USCIS neither issued a receipt nor a rejection and did not respond to repeated status inquiries until 2010.
Because no visa was available again until 2012, Schwebel aged out of CSPA eligibility; she filed a new I-485 in 2015 and USCIS denied it in 2017 as statutorily ineligible.
Schwebel sued under the APA; the district court granted her summary judgment, holding she qualified as a “child” under the CSPA and ordering USCIS to readjudicate. USCIS readjudicated and granted status; the government appealed.
The Second Circuit affirmed, but on the alternative ground of equitable estoppel: it found USCIS committed affirmative misconduct by failing to follow its mandatory notice procedure, Schwebel reasonably relied on USCIS silence, and she suffered prejudice (aged out). The court barred rescission/removal and declined to resolve the CSPA statutory question.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Schwebel qualified as a “child” under the CSPA (age calculation)	2007 filing is the relevant date; applying CSPA Schwebel was under 21	2007 filing was premature and not the applicable petition; she is ineligible	Court did not decide on the statute; declined to reach CSPA issue and affirmed on equitable estoppel instead
Whether USCIS committed affirmative misconduct by failing to reject/notify per 8 C.F.R. §103.2(a)(7)	USCIS failed to issue required rejection/receipt and ignored inquiries	Agency conduct at most negligent; manual rejection practice might explain records	Court held USCIS failed to follow mandatory procedure and that silence amounted to affirmative misconduct
Whether Schwebel reasonably relied on USCIS silence/inaction	She reasonably believed her 2007 application was being processed (USCIS accepted medical, no rejection)	Silence does not constitute a representation; she could have refiled	Court held reliance was reasonable under the facts (three years of agency inaction)
Whether plaintiff suffered prejudice and whether equitable estoppel/remedy is appropriate	She aged out and would have been able to refile within the window; seeks to bar rescission/removal	Government could rescind if appellate reversal; argued estoppel unavailable	Court found substantial prejudice, applied equitable estoppel, denied remand, and barred rescission/removal; judgment affirmed

Corniel-Rodriguez v. INS, 532 F.2d 301 (2d Cir. 1976) (estoppel against government where official failed to give regulation‑mandated warning)
Rojas-Reyes v. INS, 235 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 2000) (equitable estoppel against government requires affirmative misconduct)
INS v. Miranda, 459 U.S. 14 (1982) (negligent government conduct insufficient for estoppel)
Drozd v. INS, 155 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 1998) (estoppel against government is narrow and requires credible proof)
Ahmed v. Holder, 624 F.3d 150 (2d Cir. 2010) (denial of estoppel where petitioner failed to present credible supporting evidence)
Mantena v. Johnson, 809 F.3d 721 (2d Cir. 2015) (overview of employer‑based adjustment procedure)
Padash v. INS, 358 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 2004) (CSPA interpreted to provide expansive relief to children harmed by administrative delay)
Adams v. Holder, 692 F.3d 91 (2d Cir. 2012) (explains rescission procedure and consequences)