(emphases added) (quoting Pullman Const. Indus., Inc. v. United States, 23 F.3d 1166, 1168 (7th Cir. 1994), as amended on denial of reh'g (May 19, 1994)); Fort Bend County v. U.S. Army Corp of Eng'rs, 59 F.4th 180, 192 (5th Cir. 2023) (holding that § 702 "has been satisfied in that the complaint alleges plaintiffs have been aggrieved by agency action, that the suit is not one for money damages, and that the injury arises from an officer or employee" of the federal government). Every one of our sister circuits has construed § 702's plain language as a waiver of sovereign immunity for all equitable actions, regardless of whether they arise under the APA or other federal law.
Such waivers are “strictly construed in favor of the sovereign.” Fort Bend County v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 59 F.4th 180, 189 (5th Cir. 2023).
"' Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies from suit. '" Fort Bend County v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 59 F.4th 180, 189 (5th Cir. 2023). "The terms of those waivers, set forth by Congress, define the parameters of federal courts' subject matter jurisdiction over actions against the Government."
“A court's authority to compel agency action is limited to instances where an agency ignored ‘a specific, unequivocal command' in a federal statute or binding regulation.” Fort Bend Cnty. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 59 F.4th 180, 197 (5th Cir. 2023) (quoting SUWA, 542 U.S. at 63).
"A court's authority to compel agency action is limited to instances where an agency ignored 'a specific, unequivocal command' in a federal statute or binding regulation." Fort Bend Cnty. v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 59 F.4th 180, 197 (5th Cir. 2023) (quoting SUWA, 542 U.S. at 63, 124 S.Ct. 2373). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are unlawfully withholding and/or unreasonably delaying under the APA by intentionally refusing to rule on his I-130 petition because of an alleged Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") policy that allegedly delays adjudication of benefits for beneficiaries, like his spouse, who are from predominantly Muslim countries.
“A court's authority to compel agency action is limited to instances where an agency ignored ‘a specific, unequivocal command' in a federal statute or binding regulation.” Fort Bend Ctny. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 59 F.4th 180, 197 (5th Cir. 2023) (quoting SUWA, 542 U.S. at 63).
Generally, when a party files a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) in conjunction with a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the jurisdictional challenge is addressed first. Fort Bend County v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 59 F.4th 180, 188 (5th Cir. 2023).
"In reviewing a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss where the district court relied only on the face of the complaint, as here, 'our review is limited to determining whether the district court's application of the law is correct.'" Fort Bend Cnty. v. United States Army Corps of Eng'rs, 59 F.4th 180, 188 (5th Cir. 2023) (quoting Rollerson v. Brazos River Harbor Navigation Dist., 6 F.4th 633, 639 (5th Cir. 2021)).
Instead, we 'ask whether the agency considered the relevant facts and articulated a satisfactory explanation for its decision; we cannot substitute our judgment for the agency's.'" Fort Bend County v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 59 F.4th 180, 194 (5th Cir. 2023) (quoting Amin v. Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383, 393 (5th Cir. 2022))
In other words, "[a] court's authority to compel agency action is limited to instances where an agency ignored 'a specific, unequivocal command' in a federal statute or binding regulation." Fort Bend County v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 59 F.4th 180, 197 (5th Cir. 2023) (quoting SUWA, 542 U.S. at 63, 124 S.Ct. 2373).