Sultaliev v. Rodriguez
1:16-cv-12400
D. Mass.Jul 10, 2017Background
- Five conditional permanent residents filed I-751 petitions at the Vermont Service Center to remove conditional status; none had interviews scheduled and each application was pending more than 90 days.
- INA §1186a(d)(3) requires an interview within 90 days of filing unless the Secretary waives the interview or deadline; the Secretary also has discretion to waive.
- Plaintiffs sued USCIS officials alleging violations of agency regulations and the Administrative Procedure Act for unreasonable delay in processing/scheduling interviews.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim; plaintiffs sought leave to add one more individual plaintiff.
- The Court considered whether statutory jurisdictional bars applied, whether plaintiffs had Article III standing, and whether amendment would be futile.
- The Court allowed defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of standing and denied leave to amend as futile; it did not address the merits of the APA/regulatory claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1252(a)(2)(B) bars judicial review because the Secretary has discretion over interview waivers | Secretary’s discretion under §1186a(d)(3) does not preclude review where the agency has taken no waiver action and has a nondiscretionary duty to decide petitions within a reasonable time | §1186a gives the Secretary discretion to waive the interview/deadline, so §1252 bars review | Court: §1252 would bar review if Secretary had exercised discretion, but here inaction is not an exercised discretionary decision; jurisdiction on this ground exists |
| Whether plaintiffs have Article III standing based on delay in adjudication | Delay and lack of scheduled interviews constitute concrete injury and exposure to harms (e.g., denial of employment, travel problems) | Plaintiffs allege only procedural delay and conclusory harms; no concrete, particularized injury shown | Court: No standing. Bare procedural violation insufficient under Spokeo; plaintiffs failed to allege concrete, particularized injuries |
| Whether complaint states a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) (APA/regulatory violations) | Plaintiffs alleged violations of 8 C.F.R. §216.4(b)(1) and the APA for unreasonable delay | Defendants argued failure to state a claim and jurisdictional defects | Court: Declined to reach merits because lack of standing disposes of the case |
| Whether proposed amendment adding another plaintiff should be allowed | Amendment would add an applicant with an application pending 16 months; leave to amend should be freely given | Proposed amendment lacks new factual allegations of concrete injury; amendment would be futile | Court: Denied leave to amend as futile because proposed complaint still fails to allege concrete, particularized harm |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (plaintiff bears burden to establish Article III standing)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (purely procedural violations do not automatically confer Article III injury)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: allegations must state a plausible claim)
- Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Alaka v. Attorney General, 456 F.3d 88 (3d Cir. 2006) (interpretation that §1186a is within subchapter referenced by §1252)
- Reddy v. Foster, 845 F.3d 493 (1st Cir. 2017) (standing requires concrete and particularized injury)
- Hochendoner v. Genzyme Corp., 823 F.3d 724 (1st Cir. 2016) (conclusory assertions of harm insufficient for standing)
- Nine Iraqi Allies Under Serious Threat Because of Their Faithful Service to the United States v. Kerry, 168 F. Supp. 3d 268 (D.D.C. 2016) (plaintiffs had standing where delayed adjudication exposed them to serious imminent threats)