Khadem v. Joseph B. Edlow

Background

Thirty-one Iranian nationals sued Joseph B. Edlow, challenging the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (USCIS) failure to process their Form I-129 and Form I-539 applications. The plaintiffs attributed the delay to two recent USCIS policies placing a hold on review of immigration-benefit applications from nationals of 19 specified countries, including Iran.

The plaintiffs asserted claims under the Mandamus Act and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). They sought to require USCIS to process their applications and alleged that the policies were arbitrary and capricious, adopted without required procedures, discriminatory in the issuance of immigrant visas based on nationality, discriminatory based on national origin in violation of the Fifth Amendment, and beyond the agency’s legal authority.

Motion for Preliminary Relief

The plaintiffs sought two forms of temporary relief. First, under APA § 705, they asked the court to stay application of the challenged policies to their applications. Second, they sought a preliminary injunction requiring USCIS to process the applications within 30 days.

The court explained that both forms of relief generally require a showing of likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without relief, a balance of harms favoring relief, and consistency with the public interest. The court also noted that preliminary relief cannot issue without a threshold showing that irreparable harm is likely.

Court’s Analysis

The court focused on irreparable harm and concluded that the plaintiffs had not established the required likelihood of such harm. Another federal court had vacated the challenged policies in their entirety. USCIS represented that it was treating the policies as nonexistent and was not applying them to prevent resolution of the plaintiffs’ applications.

The court acknowledged that another court’s vacatur did not necessarily eliminate the risk of future harm because the vacatur could be stayed or overturned on appeal. But the court found that USCIS’s conduct after the vacatur had eliminated any imminent harm in this case. USCIS had fully processed and approved 26 of the 31 applications. Alireza Khadem’s application was among those approved, and the plaintiffs conceded that the five remaining applications were actively being processed. The court also observed that USCIS had taken some action on every application and that no apparent obstacle to quickly resolving the remaining applications existed.

Disposition

Judge P. Casey Pitts denied the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary relief. The court did not issue the requested stay or preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs may renew the motion if the circumstances change, including if the vacatur order in the related case is stayed or reversed.