The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz United States District Judge
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS [Doc. #4]
Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint on the grounds that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under the Administrative Procedure Act or the Mandamus Act. Defendants argue that this Court has no jurisdiction over the issue and that the remedy Plaintiffs seek is unavailable as a matter of law. For the reasons discussed below, Defendants' motion is GRANTED IN PART as to of Rui Jua,and DENIED IN PART as to Jin Sun.
On March 17, 2005, Jin Sun, a beneficiary of an employment-based visa, filed an application for adjustment of status to that of Lawful Permanent Resident (I - 485) with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS). CIS has requested and is awaiting the results of an FBI name check investigation. CIS has refused to schedule an examination interview or to further adjudicate Plaintiff Jin Sun's application until results from the FBI investigation are received.
On June 15, 2005, Rui Jua filed an application for adjustment of status to that of Lawful Permanent Resident as a derivative beneficiary of her spouse Jin Sun under 8 U.S.C. § 1153(d). The FBI completed and returned the results of a name check investigation regarding Rui Jua shortly after her application date. However, CIS has refused to further adjudicate her application before completing the adjudication process regarding the application of her spouse.
Plaintiffs jointly commenced this lawsuit on February 13, 2007.
Applications for adjustment of status are governed by the Immigration and Nationality Act, which provides: "The status of an alien . . . may be adjusted by the Attorney General, in his discretion and under such regulations as he may prescribe, to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence . . . ." 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) (emphasis added).
Plaintiffs assert that this Court has jurisdiction to review the determination of their adjustment applications under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq.; the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361; and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq.. The APA grants entitlement to judicial review to anyone "adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute." 5 U.S.C. § 702. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, a district court has jurisdiction to conduct such a review. A court finding jurisdiction to review agency action under the APA is granted the power to "compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed." 5 U.S.C. § 706(1); see also 5 U.S.C. § 555(b) ("With due regard for the convenience and necessity of the parties or their representatives and within a reasonable time, each agency shall proceed to conclude a matter presented to it.") (emphasis added). Jurisdiction under the APA is complemented by 28 U.S.C. § 1361, the Mandamus Act, which provides: "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff."
However, notwithstanding any other provision of law, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) specifically eliminates from the court's jurisdiction review of any "decision or action of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority for which is specified under this title to be in the discretion of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security . . . ." Defendants argue that CIS adjudication of applications for adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255, and specifically the pace of such adjudication, is discretionary in nature. They argue, therefore, that the Court is expressly precluded from reviewing this procedure. The Court disagrees. The Court finds that, though the decision to grant or deny an adjustment of status as described under 8 U.S.C. § 1255 is discretionary, the obligation to adjudicate an application for such, in accordance with the "reasonable time" parameters of 5 U.S.C. § 555(b), is non-discretionary in nature.See Yu v. Brown, 36 F. Supp. 2d 922, 929 (D.N.M. 1999); He v. Chertoff, No. 06cv2608 IEG (NLS), slip op. at 7-9 (S.D. Cal. March 8, 2007); Quan v. Chertoff, No. SC 06-7881, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44081, at *6 (N.D. Cal. June 7, 2007).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Court finds jurisdiction to review the Plaintiffs' Complaint. Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of ...