Skalka v. Johnson
246 F. Supp. 3d 147
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Four U.S. couples and an adoption facilitator (Frank Adoption Center) filed I-600 petitions to classify Nepalese children as "orphans" for immigrant visas; consular I-604 investigations are required to verify abandonment.
- Since August 2010, State and DHS adopted a policy suspending processing of I-600 petitions from Nepal based on systemic problems verifying abandonment (unreliable Nepalese sources, alleged corruption); such cases are deemed "not clearly approvable" and administratively closed until suspension lifts.
- Plaintiffs contend 8 U.S.C. § 1154(b) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.3(k) create a nondiscretionary duty to investigate and adjudicate each petition, and seek relief under the APA § 706(1) and the Mandamus Act to compel adjudication.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing agencies have discretion to suspend processing where investigations would be unreliable and that plaintiffs have no actionable claim for unlawful withholding or unreasonable delay.
- The court treated the claim as agency inaction review (APA § 706(1)/mandamus), analyzed whether there is a clear, nondiscretionary duty and whether delay is unreasonable under TRAC factors, and concluded the suspension is lawful and reasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1154(b) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.3(k) impose a nondiscretionary duty to investigate and adjudicate each I-600 petition | Statute/regulation uses mandatory language ("shall") and requires an I-604 investigation in every orphan case, so agencies must conduct individualized investigations and adjudicate petitions | "Shall" applies once statutory prerequisites are met; regulation forbids issuing visas before investigation but does not mandate timing or preclude suspending processing when investigations would be unreliable | Court: No clear, specific, nondiscretionary command — agencies retain discretion to suspend processing until reliable information exists (inaction not unlawfully withheld) |
| Whether the agencies’ suspension constitutes unreasonable delay under APA § 706(1) / TRAC factors | Plaintiffs: extended suspension harms families and children's welfare; delay is unreasonable and requires mandamus | Agencies: no statutory deadline; accuracy and resource-allocation justify suspension; expediting would harm accuracy and other adjudications | Court: Delay not unreasonable given lack of deadline, need for reliable investigations, competing priorities, and ongoing review of Nepal situation |
| Whether the policy is an unreviewable exercise of prosecutorial/administrative discretion | Plaintiffs: suspension is final agency action affecting rights and subject to review | Defendants: decision involves expertise, balancing and non-reviewable prosecutorial-type discretion | Court: Policy lies within agency discretion and is reviewable only for abuse; here policy is within discretion and not abused |
| Whether plaintiffs may obtain relief under APA § 706(2) (arbitrary and capricious review) | Plaintiffs: alternatively characterize suspension as final agency action reviewable under § 706(2) | Defendants: plaintiffs seek compelled action which is relief under § 706(1), and § 706(2) only permits setting aside action, not mandamus | Court: § 706(1) is the applicable vehicle for requested relief; § 706(2) inapposite; no grounds for relief under either provision |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state plausible claim)
- Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness All., 542 U.S. 55 (2004) (limits on compelling agency action unlawfully withheld)
- Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985) (agency decisions involving resource allocation and policy are presumptively unreviewable)
- Telecommunications Research & Action Ctr. v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (TRAC factors for evaluating agency delay)
- In re Barr Labs., Inc., 930 F.2d 72 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (caution against ordering petitioner ahead of queue when resources bind agency)
- In re Core Commc'ns, Inc., 531 F.3d 849 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (standards for mandamus/APA § 706(1) review)
- Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Council, Inc. v. Norton, 336 F.3d 1094 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (agency duty to act within reasonable time)
- Am. Hosp. Ass'n v. Burwell, 812 F.3d 183 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (TRAC analysis and mandamus threshold)
- Arpaio v. Obama, 797 F.3d 11 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (Congressional deference and agency discretion in immigration processing)