Agrawal v. Joseph B. Edlow

Background

Tushar Agrawal and Nidhi Jayapalan are married, are non-citizens native to India, and reside in Santa Clara County, California. Agrawal invested $800,000 in a new commercial enterprise through a designated regional center. On February 7, 2025, he filed an immigrant petition at the same time as the couple filed applications to register permanent residence. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services approved Agrawal’s petition on July 29, 2025, but the couple’s applications remained pending for more than twelve months.

The plaintiffs alleged that the agency had not shown substantive progress, provided a decision timeline, or indicated that it would act without a court order. They alleged hardships involving international travel, family care, professional opportunities, and possible employment authorization. They sought an order requiring the agency to adjudicate their applications, relying on the Administrative Procedure Act, the Mandamus Act, and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Jurisdiction over agency inaction

The defendants argued that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) deprived the court of jurisdiction over the Administrative Procedure Act and Mandamus Act claims because USCIS’s immigration decisions were discretionary. The court rejected that argument. It held that the statutory terms “decision” and “action” do not ordinarily include their opposites, “indecision” and “inaction.” It also concluded that the Immigration and Nationality Act does not give USCIS discretion to refuse to adjudicate applications altogether.

The court reasoned that the Administrative Procedure Act requires an agency to conclude matters presented to it within a reasonable time. It distinguished cases involving affirmative policies that placed applications on hold during visa retrogression, finding that the defendants had not identified a comparable policy or affirmative action concerning these applications. The court therefore held that USCIS’s alleged inaction was subject to judicial review and denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Due-process claim

The plaintiffs argued that they had a constitutional right to have USCIS adjudicate their applications, regardless of the result. The court held that the Due Process Clause does not protect an interest in the adjudication of an EB-5 visa application at a particular time. It also rejected the argument that the statutory duty to adjudicate created a constitutional property interest, explaining that the Administrative Procedure Act provided an avenue for relief and that a right to adjudication did not create the type of entitlement recognized in the cases cited by the plaintiffs.

Because the plaintiffs did not identify a constitutionally protected property interest, the court concluded that they could not state a due-process claim. The discussion states that the claim should be dismissed “with prejudice and without leave to amend.” The formal conclusion orders that the due-process claim be “DISMISSED without leave to amend.”

Disposition

The court granted the plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for leave to file a sur-reply. It dismissed the due-process claim without leave to amend. It otherwise denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss.