### In th e



# United States Court of Appeals Forthe Seventh Cir c uit

No. 16-4220

R UD E R M. C AL D E R

O N -R AMI RE Z

, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

J AM E S W

. M C C AM E NT

, Acti ng Di r ector , Uni ted S tates Ci ti zenshi p and Immi gr a ti on S er v i ces, and E L AI N E C. D UKE, Acti ng S ecr etar y of Homeland S ecur i ty, Defendants-Appellees.

Appea l fro m the U ni ted S ta tes Di stri ct Co urt fo r the No rthern Di stri ct o f Il l i no i s, Ea stern Di v i s i o n. N o . 1 6 C 8 0 8 9 — Milton I. Sha dur , Jud g e.

A RGU E D O C T OB E R 23, 2017

— D E C I D E D D E C E MB E R 5, 20172 No. 16-4220
Befor e B AU E R and H AMI L T O N , Circuit Judges, and D AR R OW , * District Judge.
B AU E R , C i rc u i t Ju d

ge
. Ru der Calder on-Rami r ez, a nati v e and ci ti zen of Guatemala, fi led a p e t it io n for U Noni mmi gr ant S tatus on Febr uar y 5, 2015. Due to a si gni fi cant ba cklog, Rami rez i s w a it in g t o be ev aluated for the w ai ti ng li st. On August 15, 2016, he fi led a peti ti on for wr i t of mandamus in the N o r ther n Di str i ct of Illi noi s r equesting that the di str i ct co u r t compel Leon Rodr ig u e z , Di r ector of Homeland S ecur i ty , and Jeh Johnson, S ecr et a r y of Homeland S ecur i ty , (collecti v ely

,
“ Defendants”), to adj udi cate h i s U-v i sa p eti ti on. Rami r ez
ar gues the w ai t to be placed on the w ai ti ng li st i s unr easonable. The di s tr i ct c our t gr anted the Defendants’ mo t i on to di smi ss. Rami rez now appeals. For the r easons set f or th b elow , w e affi rm. I. BACKGROUND
In Oct ober 2000, Congr ess c r eated the U-v i s a thr ough the passage of the Vi cti ms o f T r a ffi ckin g and Vi olence Pr otecti on Act of 2000 (“the Act”), Pub. L. No. 106-386, Di v
. A, 1 1 4 S tat. 1464 ( 2000), c odi fi ed at inter alia , 8 U.S .C. § 1101(a)(15)(U). The Act cr eated a new noni mmi gr ant v i sa classi fi cati on that per mi ts i mmi gr ants who ar e v i cti ms of ser i ous cr i mes and who assi st law enfor c ement to a pply fo r and r ecei v e a noni mmi gr ant v i sa called a U-v i sa. Id. Th e U-v i sa p r ov i des legal status to peti ti oner s and qu a l ifying fami ly member s to apply for w or k author i z ati on and r emain in the Uni ted S tates. Id. In

* O f t h e U ni ted S ta tes Di stri ct Co u rt fo r the Centra l D i s tri ct of Il l i n o i s , si tti n g b y desi gna t i o n.No. 16-4220 3

or der to quali fy

, the Depar tment of Homel a n d S e cur i ty m ust deter mine that: (1) the peti ti oner “suffer ed substanti a l p hysi cal

or mental abuse as a r esult of hav ing been a v i cti m of cr i minal acti v i ty ”; (2) the peti ti oner “possesses infor m ati on concer ning [the] cr i minal acti v i ty”; (3) the peti ti oner has be e n, is, or i s li kely to b e he lpful to gov er nment offi ci als r egar ding the

cr i min al acti v i ty; a nd, (4) the cr i minal acti v i ty at i ssue occur r ed in or vi olated the laws o f the Uni ted States. 8 U.S

. C. § 1101(a)(15)(U)(i )(I-IV). Congr ess enacted a statutor y cap of 10,000 U-v i sas each fi scal y ear
. 8 U

. S .C. § 1184(p)(2)(A). B ecause of thi s cap, a
w ai tin g li st exi sts for peti ti oner s seeki ng adj udi c ati on. 8 C.F .R. § 214.14(d)(2). Thi s r esults in tw o s epar ate w ai t i n g per i ods and tw o adj u di cati ons for each peti ti oner —one for p lacement

on the w a i ti ng li st a nd one to recei v e a U-v i sa. Un it e d S tates Ci ti zenshi p and Immi gr ati on S er v i c es ( “US CIS ” ) wi l l gr ant
e li gib le peti ti oner s and quali fyi ng fami ly m ember s on the

w ai tin g l i st defer r ed acti on and w or k author i zati on whi le they

w ai t for final adj udi cati on. I d. How ev er

, those who ar e w ai ti ng to be placed on the w ai tin g li st ar e not gr a nted thi s benefi t. Rami rez, a nati v e and ci ti z e n o f G uatemala, enter ed the Uni ted S tates in Apr il 2 0 0 2 a nd has r emained her e s ince. On A ugust 1 6, 2 014, he w as s tabbed in h i s back and leg dur ing a feloni ous assault. On Febr uar y 5, 2015, US CIS r ecei v ed Rami rez’s For m I-918, Peti ti on for U Noni mmi gr ant S tatus, For m I-192, Appli cati on for Adv ance Per mis s io n to Enter as a N oni mmi gr ant, and to

w ai v e h i s entr y wi thout inspecti on into the countr y
. S ince then,4 No. 16-4220
Rami rez h as been w ai ti n g for hi s peti ti on to be ev aluated so he can be placed on the w a i ti ng li st. On August 15, 2016, tw o y ear s after the a t t a c k and a y ear and a h alf a fter fi ling hi s peti ti o n, Rami rez r equested the di st r ic t c o ur t to i ssue an or d er compellin g the Defendants to adj udi c ate hi s U-v i s a peti ti on thr ough mandamus r eli ef or , in the alter nati v e, u nder the Adminis t r a ti v e Pr ocedur es Act (“AP A”). In response, the Defendants fi led a m oti on to di smi ss for f a il u r e to state a clai m. After a hear in g, the di str i ct cour t gr anted the Defenda n ts’ moti on to di smi ss both clai ms. Rami rez now appeals.

II. DISCUSSION W e r ev i ew a di str i ct cour t’s gr ant of a moti on to di smi ss for fai lur e to state a clai m de novo
. V olling v
. Kurtz Paramedic Servs. , Inc. , 8 40 F .3d 378, 382 (7th Ci r
. 2016). “T o sur v i v e a moti on to di smi ss, a compl aint must contai n suffi ci ent factual matter , accepted as tr ue, to ‘state a clai m to r eli ef that i s plausi ble on i ts face.’” Ashcroft v
. Iqbal, 556 U.S

. 6 62, 678 ( 2009) ( quoting Bell A tl. Corp. v
. T wombly, 550 U.S

. 544, 570 (2007)). “ W e accept a s tr ue all of the w ell-pleaded facts in the complaint a n d dr aw all

r easonable infer ences in fav or of the plainti ff[-appellant].” Kubiak v. City of Chicago , 810 F .3d 476, 480–81 (7th Ci r . 2016). A. Mandamus Relief
Di str i ct cour ts hav e the author i ty to i ssue a wr i t of mandamus to compel an agency to per for m a duty ow ed to a plainti ff. 28 U.S

. C. § 1361. “Mandamus reli ef wi ll be gr anted i f the plainti ff c an d emonstr ate that the thr ee enumer a ted c ondi ti ons
ar e pr esent: (1) a c lear r i ght t o t he r eli ef s ought; ( 2 ) that theNo. 16-4220 5
defendant has a duty to d o the act in questi on; and (3) no other adequate r emedy i s av ai lable.” Iddir v
. I.N.S. , 301 F .3d 492, 499 (7th Ci r . 2002).
T o deter m ine what r i ght i s ow ed to the plainti ff, w e look to the s tatute enact e d b y Congr ess. I d. Looki n g a t the Act, ther e i s no di spute that Rami r ez has a r i ght to adj udi cati on for both the w ai ti ng li st and a U-v i sa. Rather , R a m ir ez ar gues that the delay he has endur ed to be placed on the U-v i sa w ai ting li st i s
unr easonable, and thus, he has a r i ght to i mmedi ate a dj udi cati on. In Iddir , we found that the for mer Immi gr ati on and Natur a l i zati on S er v i ces ha d a “duty to adj udi cate the appellants’ appli cati ons in a r e asonable per i od of ti me.” Id. at 500. Whi le Iddir dealt wi th the Di v er si ty Vi sa Lotter y Pr ogr am rather than the U-v i sa w e face, we find thi s same standar d appli cable h er e. Fur ther mor e, 8 C .F .R. 214.14(d)(2) states, “[p]r i or i ty on the

w ai tin g li st wi ll b e deter mined by the date t h e peti ti on w as fi led w i th the oldest peti ti ons recei v ing the highest pr i or i ty .” Thus, due to the si gni fi cant b acklog of U-v i sa appli cati ons, w e must deter mine whether Rami r ez has a r i ght to ski p ahead of other peti ti oner s who fi led an appli c ati on befor e Rami r ez, b ut who a r e also w ai ti ng for adj udi cati on for the U-v i s a w a i ti ng li s t. Rami rez fai ls to set for th any f acts that di ffer enti ate hi mself fr om other p eti ti oner s w a i ti ng ahead of hi m for a dj udi cati on. The a p p e llees d i d concede at or al ar gument that ther e ar e instances when the Immi gr a t io ns and Customs Enfor cement
can a n d wi ll expedi te a peti ti on. How ev er , Rami r ez f ai ls to pr esent a si tuati on appr opr i ate to w a r r ant such an acti on. Wi th6 No. 16-4220
nothi ng in the r ecor d to suggest h i s w a i t ti me h as been a ny
mor e unr easonable than other peti ti oner s w ai tin g in the same lin e, we hav e no r eason to gr ant mandamus r eli ef.
B. Administrative Procedure Act Relief
Rami rez also seeks r eli ef under the AP A, ar guin g that US CIS h as a nondi s cr eti onar y duty to pr ocess hi s a p pli cati on and that he has exper i enced an unr easonable delay . The AP A speci fi cally states that, “wi thi n a r easonable ti me, each a gency shall pr oceed to conclude a matter pr esent e d t o it.” 5 U.S

. C. § 555(b). Additi onally

, the AP A pr ov i des, “ [t]he r ev i ewing
cour t shall compel age n c y acti on u nlawfully wi thheld or
unr easonably delay ed.” 5 U.S .C. § 706(1). Whi le both par ti es agr ee that US CIS has a duty to pr ocess Rami rez’s appli cati on, the Act and cor r esponding r egulati on fai l to enumer ate a ti mefr ame that US CIS i s r equi r ed to pr ocess U-v i sa peti ti ons for the w ai ti ng li s t. Thus, w e must deter mine whether Rami r ez’s w ai t has been unr easonable. US CIS i s dealing wi th an exponenti a lly incr easing number of U-Vi sa appli cati ons. S ince 2009, the U-Vis a b a c klog has incr eased fr om 21,138 to 177,340 pendi ng appli cati ons. ** Pr i or to August 2016, US CIS had one se r v ice center pr ocessing appli cati ons. In August 2016, US CIS began di str ibutin g U-v i sa peti ti ons to a second ser v i c e center in r esponse to the incr eas-

* * U .S

. C I T IZE NSHIP & I M M IG RA T ION S E RVS ., N um b er of Form I-9 1 8 , Petition for U Nonim m ig rant Status, b y Fiscal Year, Q uarter, and Case Status 2 0 0 9 -2 0 1 7, https:// www.u s c i s
. g o v/ s i t e s / d e f a u l t/ f i l e s / U S C I S / R e so urces/ R epo rts%2 0a nd%2 0 S tudi es/ Immi g ra ti o n%2 0 Fo rms%2 0Da ta/V i c t i m s / I 9 1 8 u

_ vi s a s t at i st i cs_ fy2 0 1 7

_ q tr3 .pdf (l a st v i si ted No v . 2 9 , 2 0 1 7 ).No. 16-4220 7

ing backlog. US CIS ar gues that thi s change wi ll take ti me to be felt by peti ti oner s. Due to the ci r cumst a n c e s US CIS faces and the a gency’s r ecent changes to allev i ate the b acklog, w e do not find Rami r ez’s w ai t to be unr easonable at thi s ti me. Thus, r eli ef underthe AP

A must also be deni ed. III. CONCLUSION For the for egoi ng r easons, the di str i ct cour t’ s g r ant of the defendants’ moti on to di smi ss i s AFFIRMED.