Court Opinion

ID: 9394299
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-13 00:00:39.504584+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:58.449605
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50756         Document: 00516749185              Page: 1       Date Filed: 05/12/2023

               United States Court of Appeals
                    for the Fifth Circuit                                   United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                     Fifth Circuit

                                      ____________                                 FILED
                                                                               May 12, 2023
                                        No. 22-50756
                                                                              Lyle W. Cayce
                                      ____________                                 Clerk

   Wei Li; Ya Zhou; Chen Yang; Jie Su; Yuhao Xu; Shu
   Wang; Lei Huang; Haixia Xi,

                                                                    Plaintiffs—Appellants,

                                             versus

   Ur M. Jaddou, Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services,

                                               Defendant—Appellee.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 1:21-CV-883
                     ______________________________

   Before Jones, Willett, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*

           Two1 noncitizens residing in the United States allege that United
   States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has been stalling in
           _____________________
           *
              Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion
   should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set
   forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
           1
            Thirty-three plaintiffs originally filed suit. Only two have pending applications as
   of this writing. Adjudication renders unreasonable-delay claims moot, so this case only
   presents a justiciable controversy as to the two plaintiffs with unadjudicated applications.
Case: 22-50756        Document: 00516749185              Page: 2       Date Filed: 05/12/2023

                                          No. 22-50756

   the adjudication of their green-card applications. They ask the court to
   compel the agency to take action on their pending applications: grant them,
   deny them, it doesn’t matter—just make a decision. According to the
   plaintiffs, even though their forms are complete and “adjudication ready,”
   the agency has “taken no action” on them. They conclude that the inaction
   violates the APA’s command that the agency resolve the matter “within a
   reasonable amount of time.” The district court dismissed the case pursuant
   to Fed. Rule Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6) and held that the delay was not unreasonable
   at the time of plaintiffs’ petition. The plaintiffs appeal.
           Courts can “compel agency action unlawfully withheld or
   unreasonably delayed.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(1). But “a claim under § 706(1) can
   proceed only where a plaintiff asserts that an agency [1] failed to take a discrete
   agency action that [2] it is required to take.” Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness All.,
   542 U.S. 55, 64, 124 S. Ct. 2373, 2379 (2004) (“SUWA”) (numbering
   added). “A court’s authority to compel agency action is limited to instances
   where an agency ignored ‘a specific, unequivocal command’ in a federal
   statute or binding regulation.” Fort Bend Cnty. v. United States Army Corps
   of Engineers, 59 F.4th 180, 197 (5th Cir. 2023) (quoting SUWA, 542 U.S. at
   63, 124 S. Ct. at 2379).2 The grant or denial of an I-485 is a “discrete agency
   action,” so the only issue is whether USCIS was “required to take” action
   on the I-485s by the time the plaintiffs say it should have.

           _____________________
   See Bian v. Clinton, 2010 WL 3633770, at *1 (5th Cir. Sept. 16, 2010) (per curiam) (vacating
   earlier opinion on mootness grounds because “the government has adjudicated [the]
   application”).
           2
            The plaintiffs frame their analysis in terms of the so-called TRAC factors, see
   Telecomm. Rsch. & Action Ctr. v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70, 79–80 (D.C. Cir. 1984), but this circuit
   has never adopted that multi-factor test.

                                                2
Case: 22-50756           Document: 00516749185             Page: 3      Date Filed: 05/12/2023

                                          No. 22-50756

             The plaintiffs have failed to state a plausible claim of unreasonable
   delay.3       The two non-mooted plaintiffs filed their I-485s on October 28, 2020.
   When they filed their amended complaint, the forms had been pending for
   just under 12 months. Although Congress enacted an aspirational goal of six
   months, 8 U.S.C. § 1571(b) (“180 days”), there is no clear mandate here
   such that we can say the USCIS was required to act within six months, or
   even within a year. Accordingly, the district court did not reversibly err in
   dismissing the claims without prejudice to renewal. See Fort Bend Cnty.,
   59 F.4th at 198 (dismissing § 706(1) claim because the statutory “language
   does not impose a mandatory duty on the” agency to act within a specific
   time frame).
             For the foregoing reasons, we find no plausible basis for an undue-
   delay claim. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

             _____________________
             3
            This court reviews de novo district court decisions dismissing for failure to state a
   claim. The well-known “plausibility” standard articulated in Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
   550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955 (2007) governs here.

                                                 3