Gonzalez v. Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Background

The plaintiffs were 106 individuals who alleged that they were citizens of other countries residing in the United States. Fifty-seven plaintiffs, identified as “Principal Applicants,” allegedly sought U nonimmigrant visas after law-enforcement agencies certified that they were victims of serious crimes and were needed to assist in investigations or prosecutions. The remaining 49 plaintiffs were alleged qualifying relatives of Principal Applicants. The plaintiffs said they had submitted visa-status petitions and applications for work authorization, but that USCIS had not taken action on their applications as of December 4, 2024.

The complaint sought an order requiring USCIS to issue Bona Fide Determinations within 21 days and employment authorization documents within 14 days after approving those determinations. A Bona Fide Determination is an initial agency determination that can allow a U-status applicant to receive work authorization and deferred action, meaning protection from physical removal from the United States. The plaintiffs alternatively sought waiting-list decisions if USCIS stopped making Bona Fide Determinations.

Motion and Rule 20 analysis

USCIS moved to dismiss without prejudice the claims of all plaintiffs except the first-named plaintiff, arguing that the plaintiffs were improperly joined. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 allows multiple plaintiffs to join one action when their requested relief arises from the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and when they share a common question of law or fact. Rule 21 provides that misjoinder is not itself a ground for dismissing the entire action, but permits a court to add or drop a party.

The court found that the plaintiffs did not satisfy Rule 20’s first requirement. Although they alleged that USCIS had intentionally, systematically, and unreasonably delayed their applications, the court found that this general allegation was insufficient. The plaintiffs had waited different amounts of time, ranging from six to 83 months, and USCIS could have different reasons for the alleged delays.

The court also reviewed USCIS’s policy manual and found that the agency had to make individualized findings for each applicant. Those findings could include research into national-security concerns, violent or dangerous crimes, other relevant factors, and information from various databases. For family members seeking work authorization, USCIS also had to determine whether each applicant submitted credible evidence of the qualifying family relationship. The court therefore concluded that the plaintiffs’ claims did not arise from the same transaction or occurrence. Because of that conclusion, the court did not decide Rule 20’s separate requirement concerning common questions of law or fact.

Dismissal rather than severance

The court considered whether to dismiss the improperly joined claims without prejudice to refiling in an appropriate district or to sever the claims so that the plaintiffs could proceed in separate cases in the Northern District of California. In deciding whether dismissal would cause prejudice, the court considered whether refiling could result in the loss of otherwise timely claims because of statutes of limitations.

The plaintiffs did not argue that refiling would be barred by a statute of limitations. Instead, they argued that dismissal and refiling would delay resolution of their claims and could expose them to detention, physical removal, and consequences from lacking work authorization. The court found no indication that USCIS would stop processing their applications while awaiting service of new complaints. USCIS also represented that, as of March 28, 2025, it had ruled on the applications of 30 plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs did not dispute that representation. The court found that those plaintiffs would not need to refile.

The court further found that severance in the Northern District of California would largely be futile because most plaintiffs did not reside in that district, no plaintiff asserted that the alleged delays were connected to the district, and the Director of USCIS did not reside there. The court cited the federal venue statute, which permits an action against a federal officer in a district where a plaintiff resides, where a substantial part of the relevant events or omissions occurred, or where the defendant resides.

Ruling

Judge Maxine Chesney granted USCIS’s motion to dismiss for improper joinder. The court dismissed without prejudice the claims of all plaintiffs other than Ingrid Yadira Amaranto Gonzalez. The court directed USCIS to file, within 14 days of the order, its response to the amended complaint as to Gonzalez’s claims. The court also stated that the briefing stay on the plaintiffs’ summary-judgment motion would remain in place in the interim.