Namarra v. Mayorkas

8 Citing cases

  1. Beshir v. Holder

    10 F. Supp. 3d 165 (D.D.C. 2014)   Cited 34 times
    Holding that authority to promulgate regulations for process of adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255 "grant discretion not only over the decision to adjust an alien's status but also over the promulgation of regulations to create the process by which an alien's status may be adjusted"

    District courts are divided on the question whether the APA or the Mandamus Act provides a basis for jurisdiction—and whether the INA precludes jurisdiction—over claims that USCIS unreasonably delayed the adjudication of an adjustment application. CompareSenbeta v. Mayorkas, 2013 WL 2936316 (D.Minn. Jun. 14, 2013) (finding subject-matter jurisdiction exists); Bemba v. Holder, 930 F.Supp.2d 1022 (E.D.Mo.2013) (same); Irshad v. Napolitano, 2012 WL 4593391 (D.Neb. Oct. 2, 2012) (same), withNamarra v. Mayorkas, 924 F.Supp.2d 1058 (D.Minn.2013) (finding a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction); Seydi v. USCIS, 779 F.Supp.2d 714 (E.D.Mich.2011) (same).

  2. Karam v. Garland

    Civil Action 21-0915 (CKK) (D.D.C. Sep. 30, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    Id. (quoting Labaneya v. USCIS, 965 F.Supp.2d 823, 829 (E.D. Mich. 2013)); see also Namarra v. Mayorkas, 924 F.Supp.2d 1058, 1064 (D. Minn. 2013) (“[C]ommit[ting] the adjustment decision itself, as well as the authority to promulgate regulations governing the adjudication process, to the Secretary's discretion, but exclud[ing] from the Secretary's discretion the time required to arrive at the adjustment decision, merely puts form over substance.”).

  3. Singh v. Holder

    Civil Action No. 14-387 (ES) (JAD) (D.N.J. Mar. 25, 2015)   Cited 4 times

    Plaintiff cites no case law suggesting otherwise, and so the Court is left to conclude that what Plaintiff actually objects to "is not the absence of any agency decision or action, but rather the decision that the agency made—the decision to place [his] application[] on hold until an applicable exemption was issued." Namarra v. Mayorkas, 924 F. Supp. 2d 1058, 1063 (D. Minn. 2013). Accordingly, the Court must next determine whether "the authority for" the decision to keep Plaintiff's application on indefinite hold and the pace of processing adjustment applications in general is "specified under this subchapter to be in the discretion of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security" as transferred to USCIS.

  4. Banerjee v. Ur Jaddou

    Civil Action 22-4664 (RK) (JBD) (D.N.J. Nov. 20, 2023)

    District courts have split on the question of whether Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) precludes judicial review of such claims. Some courts have determined that the pace at which visa applications are adjudicated by USCIS may be reviewed by the courts, see, e.g., Tista v. Jaddou, 577 F.Supp.3d 1219 (D.N.M. 2021); Pulido v. Cuccinelli, 497 F.Supp.3d 79, 89 (D.S.C. 2020); Cao v. Upchurch, 496 F.Supp.2d 569, 574 (E.D. Pa. 2007), while others have determined that judicial review is foreclosed by Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), see, e.g., Beshir v. Holder, 10 F.Supp.3d 165, 176 (D.D.C. 2014); Namarra v. Mayorkas, 924 F.Supp.2d 1058, 1064 (D. Minn. 2013); Safadi v. Howard, 466 F.Supp.2d 696, 700 (E.D. Va. 2006). Courts in other Districts have specifically held that USCIS's visa retrogression policy of holding applications for adjustment of status in abeyance is unreviewable based on Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).

  5. Kale v. Jaddou

    5:22-CV-338-FL (E.D.N.C. Aug. 2, 2023)

    ; Namarra v. Mayorkas, 924 F.Supp.2d 1058, 1064 (D. Minn. 2013) (finding no jurisdiction over claims challenging the pace of adjudication of status adjustment applications, collecting cases)

  6. Xiu Jin Lin v. McAleenan

    Case No. 3:19-cv-00283 (S.D.W. Va. Oct. 7, 2019)

    See e.g. Beshir v. Holder, 10 F. Supp. 3d 165, 174 (D.D.C. 2014) ("Because the INA's jurisdiction-stripping provision applies to the pace of adjudication, then, it provides a barrier to any basis for judicial review over [the plaintiff's] claim."); Singh v. Holder, No. CIV.A. 14-387 ES JAD, 2015 WL 1399055, at *10 (D.N.J. Mar. 25, 2015) (finding no jurisdiction over claims challenging the pace of adjudication of status adjustment applications); Namarra v. Mayorkas, 924 F. Supp. 2d 1058, 1064 (D. Minn. 2013) (same, collecting cases); Singh v. Napolitano, 909 F. Supp. 2d 1164, 1169 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (same). See e.g. Koren v. Chertoff, No. 3:07CV157 PCD, 2007 WL 1431948, at *4 (D. Conn. May 14, 2007)

  7. Khan v. Johnson

    65 F. Supp. 3d 918 (C.D. Cal. 2014)   Cited 24 times
    Holding that the plaintiffs' interests in pursuing permanent residence and citizenship are compelling because a final determination on an application "end a stressful waiting period"

    Therefore, the Court concludes that § 1252(a)(2)(B)'s jurisdictional bar does not apply, and DENIES defendants' Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss. See, e.g., Beshir v. Holder, 10 F.Supp.3d 165, 172–73 (D.D.C.2014) (acknowledging a split among courts and concluding that the pace of adjudication was discretionary as to preclude review); Namarra v. Mayorkas, 924 F.Supp.2d 1058, 1065–66 (D.Minn.2013); Bayolo v. Swacina, No. 09–21202, 2009 WL 1307957, at *1 (S.D.Fla. May 11, 2009); Li v. Chertoff, 482 F.Supp.2d 1172, 1177–78 (S.D.Cal.2007).2. Failure to State a Claim

  8. Senbeta v. Mayorkas

    Civil No. 12-1793 (DWF/FLN) (D. Minn. Jun. 14, 2013)

    Id. at 932-33; see also Al Jabari v. Chertoff, 536 F. Supp. 2d 1029, 1035 (D. Minn. 2008) ("[T]he Attorney General has discretion over what a decision will be, but not over whether a decision will be made; the Attorney General does not have discretion to refuse to exercise his discretion."). But see Namarra v. Mayorkas, Civ. No. 12-1792, 2013 WL 619777, at *6 (D. Minn. Feb. 20, 2013) ("the statutory grant of discretion to promulgate regulations governing how to make adjustment decisions necessarily carries with it the discretion to determine when those adjustment decisions will be made") (emphasis in original).