Thomas Taylor v. James McCament
875 F.3d 849
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Congress created the U-visa in 2000 to protect crime victims and incentivize cooperation with law enforcement; adjustments to permanent residence follow after holding U-status for three years.
- DHS/USCIS did not publish implementing regulations until interim rules in 2007 and final rules in December 2008; by then many petitions had accumulated.
- Federal law caps U-visas at 10,000 per fiscal year; excess eligible applicants are placed on a waiting list with priority by filing date and receive deferred action while waiting.
- Thomas Taylor, an Irish national, applied for a U-visa in June 2014; USCIS found him eligible but placed him on the waiting list and granted deferred action in 2016.
- Taylor sued under the APA and the Mandamus Act seeking a court order compelling USCIS to immediately issue 80,000 U-visas allegedly withheld during prior years of agency delay.
- The district court dismissed for lack of standing; the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding Taylor could not show that a favorable judgment would redress his injury because USCIS lacks statutory authority to exceed the annual 10,000 cap.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing — redressability: Can a court order remedy Taylor’s alleged injury? | Taylor argued a court could compel USCIS to issue 80,000 withheld U-visas to clear the backlog. | USCIS argued the statutory 10,000 per-year cap prevents issuing extra visas now, so court relief would be ineffective. | Held: No redress — court cannot order issuance beyond the statutory cap; Taylor lacks standing. |
| Mandamus/APA relief: Is agency delay actionable and mandamusable? | Taylor claimed unreasonable delay in issuing regulations deprived applicants of visas and sought mandamus/APA relief to compel issuance. | Defendants argued even if delay occurred, the relief sought (immediate issuance of 80,000 visas) is unavailable because of statutory limits. | Court did not reach merits; dismissed for lack of standing. |
| Ability to adjudicate Taylor’s individual petition immediately | Taylor implied injunctive relief could include immediate adjudication of petitions. | Defendants noted USCIS regulation prioritizes by filing date; immediate adjudication could not leapfrog others and still cannot create extra visas. | Held: Even immediate adjudication would not allow issuance beyond the cap; relief requested is ineffective. |
| Role of APA in standing analysis | Taylor asserted the APA authorizes courts to compel agency action and thus provides redressability. | Defendants argued APA does not cure constitutional standing; a plaintiff still must show judicial relief would be effective. | Held: APA cannot substitute for Article III redressability; Taylor failed to show a judicial order could provide the relief sought. |
Key Cases Cited
- Iddir v. INS, 301 F.3d 492 (7th Cir. 2002) (mandamus inappropriate where agency lacked statutory authority to grant requested visa relief)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (U.S. 2016) (standing requires injury in fact fairly traceable to defendant and redressable by relief requested)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (foundational redressability and standing principles)
- Parvati Corp. v. City of Oak Forest, 630 F.3d 512 (7th Cir. 2010) (mootness explained as standing through time)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (U.S. 2000) (standing/mootness principles concerning continuation of personal interest)
- Silha v. ACT, Inc., 807 F.3d 169 (7th Cir. 2015) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(1) factual jurisdictional challenges)