Shokri Varniab v. Edlow: Preliminary Injunction Granted Against USCIS Nationality-Based Adjudication Hold (N.D. Cal. 2026)
1) Plaintiffs: Dr. Zahra Shokri Varniab and
Dr. Ashkan Pourabhari Langroudi, married medical doctors from Iran.
2) Defendants:
• Joseph B. Edlow, Director of USCIS
• Kristi Noem, Secretary of Homeland
Security
• Pamela Bondi, Attorney General of the
United States
Facts
Plaintiffs
filed suit in the Northern District of California on 11 December 2025 seeking
to compel USCIS to adjudicate their pending applications for adjustment of
status (I‑485) and employment authorization
(I‑765). They subsequently moved for
a preliminary injunction.
Plaintiffs
are graduates of Tehran University of Medical Sciences and previously practiced
medicine in Iran. They entered the United States lawfully on J‑1 (principal) and J‑2 (dependent) visas on 6 March 2023. Dr. Varniab works as a postdoctoral research
fellow at Stanford School of Medicine; Dr. Langroudi is a visiting instructor
and researcher in Stanford’s urology
department. Dr. Varniab’s career
plan requires securing a diagnostic radiology residency through the National
Residency Match Program (NRMP). Match Day for the relevant cycle is 20 March
2026, and she expects to need valid work authorization (through an EAD or
permanent residence) within days to a couple of weeks to sign any residency
contract. Her current J‑1 research
status cannot be used for such clinical employment.
Dr.
Langroudi’s then‑current EAD,
based on his J‑2 status, expires on 31 March
2026, after which he cannot continue in his Stanford appointment or obtain new
employment without another lawful basis for work authorization.
On 2 May
2025, USCIS approved Dr. Varniab’s EB‑1A immigrant
petition (extraordinary ability). On 12 May 2025, both plaintiffs filed Form I‑485 (adjustment of status) and Form I‑765 (employment authorization) based on the
EB‑1A approval.
Biometrics
were completed on 27 May 2025. Thereafter, until the lawsuit was filed on 11
December 2025, USCIS gave no substantive updates, RFEs, or decisions, despite
multiple expedite requests by Dr. Varniab.
On 2
December 2025, USCIS issued Policy Memorandum PM‑602‑0192 (“PM‑0192”), “Hold and
Review of all Pending Asylum Applications and all USCIS Benefit Applications
Filed by Aliens from High‑Risk
Countries.” PM‑0192 imposed an “adjudicative hold” on a wide range of pending immigration‑benefit applications filed by nationals of 19
“high‑risk” countries, including Iran, with the hold to
remain “until lifted by the USCIS
Director.”
On 1 January
2026, USCIS issued PM‑602‑0194 (“PM‑0194”), extending
and elaborating the hold to additional countries and clarifying that cases
could be processed up to final decision, but issuance of the final decision
(approval/denial/dismissal) was deferred.
Claims
asserted
• Claim 1 – Mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1361
to compel USCIS to act on the I‑485 and I‑765.
• Claim 2 – APA § 706(1) for agency action
unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.
• Claim 3 – APA § 706(2)(A) (arbitrary and
capricious) challenging PM‑0192.
• Claim 4 – APA procedural violation for
failure to conduct notice‑and‑comment rulemaking before implementing PM‑0192/PM‑0194.
• Claim 5 – National‑origin discrimination under INA § 202(a)(1)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A).
• Claim 6 – Fifth Amendment Equal Protection
(national‑origin discrimination).
• Claim 7 – Ultra vires (actions beyond
statutory authority).
Issues
For purposes
of the preliminary‑injunction
motion, the court framed and addressed several key questions:
1.
Jurisdictional issue (8 U.S.C. § 1252)
Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i)–(ii)
strips the district court of subject‑matter
jurisdiction to review USCIS’s
application of the PM‑0192 “hold” to
plaintiffs’ pending I‑485 and I‑765, even though no final immigration
decision or removal order has been issued.
2. APA “duty
to act” / unreasonable delay
Whether plaintiffs have shown a likelihood
of success on their claim that USCIS has a mandatory, non‑discretionary duty to adjudicate their I‑485 and I‑765 applications, and that placing them on
indefinite hold under PM‑0192
constitutes unlawful withholding or unreasonable delay under APA § 706(1).
3. APA
“arbitrary and capricious” and rulemaking procedure
Whether PM‑0192 is a final, substantive rule that:
1) is arbitrary and capricious (lacking
reasoned decision‑making,
evidence, or adequate consideration of key factors); and/or
2) should have been promulgated through APA
notice‑and‑comment procedures (and therefore is
procedurally invalid).
4.
Constitutional and statutory discrimination issues
Whether making immigration‑benefit adjudication depend on country of
origin under PM‑0192 likely violates:
1) INA § 202(a)(1)(A), prohibiting national‑origin discrimination in immigrant visa
issuance; and
2) the Equal Protection component of the
Fifth Amendment.
5.
Preliminary‑injunction standard
Under Winter / Ninth Circuit
principles:
• Have plaintiffs shown (a) likelihood of
success on the merits, (b) irreparable harm, (c) balance of equities in their
favor, and (d) that an injunction is in the public interest?
Decision
Judge Susan
van Keulen granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and
ordered the following relief:
• Defendants (and their officers, agents,
employees, etc.) are enjoined from applying the PM‑0192 adjudication hold to plaintiffs’ pending Form I‑765 applications for employment authorization
and Form I‑485 applications for adjustment of status.
• USCIS and related defendants must
adjudicate plaintiffs’ I‑765 and I‑485 applications within 30 days of the date
of the order (20 February 2026), and inform plaintiffs of the decision and, if
denied, the reasons for denial.
• Defendants’ counsel must provide written
notice of the order to all defendants by 24 February 2026 and file a copy of
that notice on the docket. The court set
an in‑person case‑management conference for 24 March 2026 and
required the parties’ joint
statement to address defendants’ compliance
with the injunction.
• The court waived any bond requirement under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c), finding defendants had neither requested a bond nor
shown any likelihood of damages from the injunction.
Analysis of the Decision
The
government argued that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) barred jurisdiction over claims
related to adjustment of status and other discretionary immigration
decisions. The court rejected this,
emphasizing (i) There is no final removal order and no final decision on the I‑485/I‑765, (ii) Plaintiffs
challenge inaction and systemic delay under a policy (PM‑0192), not a discretionary decision on the
merits of any application; and (iii) Plaintiffs bring claims under the APA and
mandamus statutes, which remain reviewable in this non‑removal context. The court concluded § 1252(a)(2)(B) did not
strip jurisdiction over APA and mandamus claims arising from USCIS’s refusal to
adjudicate pending benefits under the hold policy.
The court
applied Norton v. SUWA to determine whether plaintiffs identified a
“discrete agency action” that USCIS is legally required to take under the INA
and regulations. It found that statutes and regulations confer eligibility
to apply, and the regulatory framework contemplates adjudication of filed I‑485 and I‑765 applications. It also found that having
accepted plaintiffs’ filings and fees, USCIS has a non‑discretionary duty to reach a decision
(approval or denial) within a reasonable time, even though the outcome itself
is discretionary.
For
unreasonable delay, the court applied the six TRAC factors from the D.C.
Circuit’s decision in Telecommunications Research & Action Center (TRAC) v.
FCC, 750 F.2d 70 (D.C. Cir. 1984).
Rule
of reason:
A first‑in, first‑out system can be a valid rule of
reason. Here, however, PM‑0192 replaces normal FIFO processing with an
indefinite hold for nationals of specified countries, without any temporal
limit or clear standards. The court held that an open‑ended hold “until
lifted” is inconsistent with a rule of
reason.
Statutory
timetable / sense of Congress:
The court
noted 8 U.S.C. § 1571(b), which expresses the sense of Congress that
immigration‑benefit adjudications should
generally be completed within 180 days. While not mandatory, this supports the
conclusion that the multi‑month and
potentially indefinite delay here is problematic.
Human
health and welfare / nature and extent of prejudice:
Delays in
immigration adjudications affect significant human‑welfare interests, particularly where
careers, family stability, and medical service to the public are at stake. Plaintiffs face loss of employment, inability
to start a radiology residency after Match Day, disruption to medical careers,
and emotional strain—harms the
court found substantial.
Effect
of expediting on competing priorities:
Defendants
argued that ordering adjudication would allow plaintiffs to “jump the
line.” The court found this concern
overstated: plaintiffs are already in the queue, and the injunction simply
prevents them from being uniquely frozen by PM‑0192 because of nationality, rather than re‑ordering the ordinary queue for others.
No
need to find bad faith:
Plaintiffs
made no allegation of agency impropriety; under TRAC this is not
required to find unreasonable delay. Overall, the court held the TRAC
factors “weigh in favor” of finding USCIS’s delay unreasonable under APA §
706(1), supporting likelihood of success on Claim 2.
The court
concluded PM‑0192 is a final agency action
because (i) it marks the consummation of USCIS’s decision‑making process regarding whether to place
covered cases on hold; and (ii) it has
direct and immediate legal consequences for affected applicants (placing them
in indefinite adjudication limbo, delaying their ability to work, travel, or
secure status).
The court
treated PM‑0192 as a substantive rule—it changes the legal status and rights of
applicants from designated countries by imposing a blanket adjudicatory hold,
and is not a mere internal procedural guideline. As such, it was likely
required to undergo notice‑and‑comment rulemaking under APA § 553.
Applying APA
§ 706(2)(A), the court indicated PM‑0192 is
likely arbitrary and capricious because, among other points:
• The record did not show a reasoned
explanation connecting the sweeping, nationality‑based hold to any specific, evidence‑based security risk concerning plaintiffs or
similarly‑situated applicants.
• The policy failed to grapple with critical
factors, including the serious impact on applicants’ careers and on the U.S.
healthcare system (given plaintiffs’ medical qualifications).
• USCIS had already carved out multiple
exceptions via PM‑0194,
undermining the logic of an across‑the‑board freeze while suggesting the policy
could have been more narrowly tailored.
The court
therefore found plaintiffs likely to succeed on Claims 3 and 4 (substantive and
procedural APA challenges).
Plaintiffs
argued that PM‑0192 discriminates based on
national origin in violation of INA §
202(a)(1)(A) and the Equal Protection component of the Fifth Amendment because
it targets immigrants from specified countries, including Iran. The court
analyzed these arguments but ultimately did not need to fully resolve them at
the preliminary‑injunction stage, because
plaintiffs had already shown substantial likelihood of success on their APA
claims. It nonetheless emphasized that Fifth Amendment protections extend to
“all persons” in the United States, regardless of nationality or immigration
status.
The court
accepted that without timely adjudication (i) Dr. Varniab could lose the
opportunity to enter a radiology residency and progress toward licensure, (ii) Dr.
Langroudi would lose work authorization and his academic position when his EAD
expired, and (iii) both would suffer continuing uncertainty, financial
instability, and emotional distress. These harms were not compensable by money
damages and were imminent, thus irreparable.
Plaintiffs
faced concrete, career‑threatening
harms. The government, by contrast, did not show that adjudicating two cases
within 30 days would meaningfully impair national security or USCIS operations,
especially since many exceptions to PM‑0192 already
existed and the policy itself permitted cases to proceed through all steps
short of final decision. The court held the balance of equities “tips sharply”
in plaintiffs’ favor.
The court
stressed that the public interest is served by lawful, reasoned implementation
of immigration policy under the APA and Constitution. Public health would not be served by leaving
trained physicians in limbo; indeed, it would likely deter similarly‑situated international medical professionals
from practicing in the United States. Accordingly, the public interest favored
granting the injunction.
Comments
Post a Comment