Opinion ID: 2995808
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the INS has a duty to adjudicate

Text: Whether the INS has a duty to adjudicate these applications is a more complex question. The INS claims that the visas expired at the end of the fiscal year, thus, the INS cannot issue the visas regardless of the outcome of any adjudication. The appellants counter by pointing out that the INS has, in the past, adjudicated the status of DV Program participants after the end of the fiscal year of the program and issued visas. See Paunescu, 76 F. Supp. 2d at 902; Marcetic v. INS, 1998 WL 173129, at  (N.D. Ill. April 6, 1998). The district court in Nyaga recognized that the issues of duty and potential relief are entangled in this unique statutory situation. Nyaga, 186 F. Supp. 2d at 1252-53. The district court in Iddir also flagged this issue, but analyzed it under the mootness doctrine. The power to confer citizenship upon aliens rests solely with Congress, as delegated to the Executive branch to administer. See, e.g., INS v. Pangilinan, 486 U.S. 875, 88384 (1988). While a federal court does not have the authority to make someone a citizen, it does have the power to require the Executive to carry out Congress’ commands. Congress gave the Attorney General, and thereby his delegatee the INS, the power to administer the DV Program and the duty to adjudicate the applications of the participants. See 8 U.S.C. § 1153(c); 8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(1)(I); 22 C.F.R. § 42.33. The relevant statutes and regulations Nos. 01-3799 & 01-3802 15 confirm that the INS did have the duty to adjudicate the appellants’ applications in a reasonable period of time. See Nyaga, 186 F. Supp. 2d at 1252-53; Iddir, 166 F. Supp. 2d at 1258; Paunescu, 76 F. Supp. 2d at 900-01. The reason the appellants are before this court is because the INS never managed to fulfill the duty Congress placed upon it. Nevertheless, the relief the appellants currently seek is illusory, because even if the INS adjudicated the applications today, visas could not be issued. See Iddir, 166 F. Supp. 2d at 1259. Despite past practices of the agency, the statute unequivocally states that the applicants only remain eligible “through the end of the specific fiscal year for which they were selected.”2 8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(1)(I)(ii); 8 U.S.C. § 1153(c)(1); 22 C.F.R. § 42.43(e). Based on the statutory deadline set by Congress, the INS lacks the statutory authority to award the relief sought by the plaintiffs. Thus, here the mandamus remedy is not appropriate because one of the conditions for such extraordinary relief—the clear duty to adjudicate the petitions—is not present. Cf. Scalise, 891 F.2d at 647-48; Save the Dunes Council v. Alexander, 584 F.2d 158, 162 (7th Cir. 1978). The INS points out that a number of avenues for the appellants to gain citizenship remain. That other potential methods of relief exist is beside the point and does not mitigate and cannot countenance the INS’ misfeasance 2 It would be a different case had the district court ordered the INS to adjudicate the appellants’ status while the INS maintained the statutory authority to issue the visas. See Paunescu, 76 F. Supp. 2d at 902-03; Marcetic, 1998 WL 173129, at -3. In such a situation, the INS would be on notice to reserve visas and must complete the task, as ordered, before time expires. Allowing the INS to claim inability to issue visas at that point would impinge the authority of the court. See Paunescu, 76 F. Supp. 2d at 902-03; Marcetic, 1998 WL 173129, at -3. 16 Nos. 01-3799 & 01-3802 in this case. “This Court has frequently articulated the ‘great principle of public policy, applicable to all governments alike, which forbids that the public interests should be prejudiced by the negligence of the officers or agents to whose care they are confided.’ ” Brock v. Pierce County, 476 U.S. 253, 260 (1986) (quoting United States v. Nashville, C. & St. L.R. Co., 118 U.S. 120, 125 (1886)). Indeed, the appellants may all, once again, apply for DV Program visas, win the lottery, and hope their applications will actually be adjudicated by the INS before the statutory deadline passes. The appellants may also petition Congress for a private bill, which would direct the INS to grant them the relief they seek. See, e.g., H.R. 4863, 107th Cong. (2002) (“For the relief of Rodney Allan Green and Wendy Sharon Green”); H.R. 4829, 107th Cong. (2002) (“For the relief of Olivera Goronja”); H.R. 4713, 107th Cong. (2002) (“For the relief of Laura Maldonado Caetani”); S. 2472, 107th Cong. (2002) (“For the relief of Rosemary Bichage”). Finally, the appellants, or other groups focused on immigration, can lobby Congress to alter the statutory scheme in 8 U.S.C. §§ 1153(c) and 1154(a)(1)(I) to allow visas to be issued to qualifying DV Program lottery winners after the fiscal year ends, if the INS fails to timely adjudicate their applications. Cf. H.R. 3894, 107th Cong. (2002) (“To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to restore fairness to immigration law, and for other purposes.”).