Guntamadugu v. Joseph B. Edlow

Background

The plaintiffs seek to immigrate to the United States through the EB-5 immigrant-investor program. They alleged that they invested $800,000 in a new commercial enterprise and completed Form I-526E, an immigrant petition. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) had not completed adjudication of their Form I-485 applications to register permanent residence or adjust status.

The complaint asserted three causes of action under the Mandamus Act, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The plaintiffs asked the court to require the defendants to adjudicate their I-485 applications and alleged that the delay was unreasonable and that the defendants had failed to provide a reasonable and fair adjudication framework.

Defendants’ Motion

Defendant Joseph B. Edlow and USCIS moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Under Rule 12(b)(1), they argued that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars review of certain discretionary immigration decisions. They argued that adjustment-of-status decisions under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) are discretionary.

Alternatively, under Rule 12(b)(6), the defendants argued that the due-process claim was inadequately pleaded. They contended that the plaintiffs had no protected liberty or property interest in the timing, vetting, resource allocation, or other processing of their applications.

Court’s Analysis

The court rejected the jurisdictional argument. It agreed with prior Northern District of California analyses that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) does not bar jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ case challenging the pace of adjudication. The court therefore DENIED the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

The court separately considered the due-process claim. It explained that a due-process claim requires a protected liberty or property interest. The plaintiffs relied on an asserted interest in the “fundamental fairness” of their administrative adjudication. The court held that a desire for fundamental fairness in an administrative proceeding is not a cognizable liberty or property interest supporting a procedural due-process claim. It concluded that the due-process claim failed as a matter of law and stated that the cause of action must be dismissed with prejudice. The court therefore GRANTED the defendants’ motion to dismiss the due-process claim.

Disposition

The court GRANTED in part and DENIED in part the motion to dismiss: it denied dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and granted dismissal of the due-process claim. The court ordered the parties to file a joint case-management statement by September 30, 2026, including a proposal for completing alternative dispute resolution and a proposed schedule for the remaining case.