UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________ ) ANDRES GARCIA URANGA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 20-0521 (ABJ) ) U.S. CITIZENSHIP & ) IMMIGRATION SERVICES, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________) MEMORANDUM OPINION On February 21, 2020, plaintiff Andres Garcia Uranga filed this lawsuit against the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”); U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”); Chad F. Wolf, the Acting Secretary of DHS; Kenneth Thomas Cuccinelli, II, Acting Director of USCIS; Donald Neufeld, Associate Director of Service Center Operations of USCIS; Michael Paul, Acting Deputy Director of the Vermont Service Center of USCIS; and William Connor, Field Office Director of the Nebraska Service Center of USCIS. Compl. [Dkt. # 1]. Plaintiff submitted a petition for a U-visa and employment authorization documents four years ago, but the government has yet to make a decision. This action asks the Court to find the delay to be unreasonable and to order the agency to act. See Am. Compl. [Dkt. # 6]. Plaintiff seeks declaratory, mandamus, and injunctive relief that would compel defendants to determine his eligibility for placement on the U-visa waitlist, adjudicate his request for employment authorization documents, and issue him interim work authorization documents. Id. at Prayer for Relief at 20–21. 1 Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss Am. Compl. [Dkt. # 16] (“Defs.’ Mot.”). For the reasons set out in detail below, the motion will be granted in part and denied in part: The First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Causes of Action will be dismissed, and the motion to dismiss the others will be denied. The Court finds that the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 does not deprive it of jurisdiction to consider the complaint in its entirety, but it does lack jurisdiction to review the claims alleging a failure to make the discretionary decision, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1184(p)(6), to grant or deny employment authorization documents pending the decision on plaintiff’s U-visa application. The Court concludes that it has jurisdiction to hear the claims questioning the delay in determining plaintiff’s eligibility for placement on the U-visa waitlist. But while it is deeply concerned about the length of time the plaintiff has been waiting for this decision and it cannot in good conscience characterize it as “reasonable,” it is constrained by Circuit precedent to refrain from ordering the agency to advance consideration of plaintiff’s request ahead of those filed by thousands of others who have also been waiting too long. Finally, the Court finds that it has jurisdiction to hear plaintiff’s claim concerning unreasonable delay in the consideration of his request for interim work authorization documents; that the 2011 regulation requiring consideration within a set period of time governs plaintiff’s application; and that the complaint states a claim for agency action unlawfully withheld given the failure to adhere to the plain terms of the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals