Opinion
22-cv-07027-RS
01-16-2023
TREEZ, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION
RICHARD SEEBORG, Chief United States District Judge
Plaintiffs in this action allege that defendants wrongfully denied an amended H1-B visa petition and in so doing violated the Administrative Procedures Act by issuing a decision that was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law” and that was “in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right.” Plaintiffs further assert defendants effectively enacted a new rule without providing a notice-and-comment period or otherwise following appropriate procedures.
Defendants now seek an order vacating the currently set case management deadlines and instead directing issuance of a procedural order in the form proscribed by General Order No. 61 for immigration mandamus cases. This case, however, does not seek a writ of mandamus or otherwise fall within the intended scope of General Order No. 61.
General Order No. 61 was adopted at a time when the court was deluged with mandamus actions seeking to compel the government to take action on immigration petitions that had been pending for extended periods. The order streamlined the process for addressing those matters. The present action does not seek a mandate compelling defendants to perform a non-discretionary duty simply to act on a petition.
That said, it may well be that this matter can and should be addressed through cross-motions for summary judgment akin to those required under General Order 61, as is commonplace in actions brought under the Administrative Procedures Act. The parties may present their proposals in their Joint Case Management Conference Statement, which is presently due by February 9, 2023.
IT IS SO ORDERED.