Barretto v. Jaddou

Background

Preetesh Crijos Barretto and Eunice Ignatius Gonsalves brought this action under the Administrative Procedure Act, a federal law that allows challenges to unlawful or unreasonably delayed agency action. They sued Ur M. Jaddou, identified as the Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), and Antony Blinken, identified as the Secretary of the U.S. Department of State (DOS).

The plaintiffs allege that USCIS and DOS use policies requiring an immigrant visa to be immediately available both when an application to adjust status is filed and when it is approved. They allege that when visa availability moves backward, a process known as visa retrogression, the agencies place otherwise approvable applications on an adjudication hold rather than issuing final decisions.

The plaintiffs filed I-485 applications for adjustment to lawful permanent resident status in June 2020 and October 2020. They allege that their applications remain pending, are ready for adjudication, and have priority dates of November 19, 2014. They further allege that DOS moved the relevant current date to April 2012, making visas not immediately available to them and subjecting their applications to the adjudication-hold policies.

Their amended complaint asserts three claims: that USCIS unlawfully refuses to finally adjudicate their applications based on its policy; that DOS unlawfully refuses to issue visa numbers based on its policy; and that USCIS unreasonably delayed deciding their applications. They seek declarations that the policies are unlawful, an injunction against applying them to the plaintiffs, and an order requiring USCIS to decide their applications within 30 days.

Motion to Stay

The defendants moved to stay, or pause, the case while the Ninth Circuit considered Babaria v. Blinken. That appeal involved similar claims by applicants whose visas were available when they applied but no longer available when their applications were ready for adjudication. The district court in Babaria had denied preliminary relief after finding little to no likelihood of success on the merits, and the appeal had been consolidated with Singh v. Jaddou and Datta v. Jaddou. The Ninth Circuit had scheduled oral argument for March 29, 2023.

The court applied the three factors used for a stay under Landis: possible harm from granting the stay, hardship or inequity from requiring the case to proceed, and whether a stay would promote the orderly course of justice by simplifying issues and conserving judicial resources.

The court found that the hardship factor was neutral. The plaintiffs described generalized harms from delay but did not provide evidence of particular harms caused by staying this litigation. The court also noted that a stay would not affect their current lawful status, ability to work in the United States, or ability to travel abroad. The defendants likewise did not identify a specific hardship apart from having to continue defending the lawsuit.

The court found that the orderly-course-of-justice factor favored a stay. It determined that the Babaria appeal involved identical claims, legal issues, and theories; could provide substantial guidance or resolve the plaintiffs’ claims; could narrow the issues; could avoid inconsistent rulings; and could conserve judicial resources before the plaintiffs’ anticipated motion for partial summary judgment.

Ruling

Judge Donna Ryu granted the defendants’ motion to stay. The court administratively closed the case for docketing reasons. The order states that any party may reopen the case by filing a notice within 14 days after the Ninth Circuit issues its mandate in the consolidated Babaria appeal. The court did not decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ Administrative Procedure Act claims in this order.