Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Ahmad Jaber, whose asylum application had been approved, sued over the government’s failure to decide his later application for adjustment of status. He invoked the Administrative Procedure Act and due process, seeking an order compelling action.
Federal officials moved to dismiss, arguing that immigration law strips courts of jurisdiction over adjustment decisions and that the complaint did not plausibly allege an unreasonable delay.
The Court’s Holding
The court rejected the broad jurisdictional argument. Although the ultimate adjustment decision is discretionary, a claim targeting agency inaction or unreasonable delay is not necessarily the same as asking a court to dictate the discretionary result.
The court nevertheless found parts of the pleading deficient, including conclusory allegations supporting some theories. It granted the motion in part, denied it in part, allowed amendment within 30 days, and permitted the adequately pleaded delay claim to continue if no amendment is filed.
Key Takeaways
- Jurisdictional bars covering discretionary immigration decisions do not always foreclose suits over agency delay.
- A plaintiff must plead concrete facts showing more than ordinary processing time.
- The requested remedy should seek a decision, not a particular outcome.
- Due-process labels cannot substitute for facts showing a protected interest and deficient procedure.
Why It Matters
The decision preserves a potential federal forum for applicants facing extreme administrative stagnation while underscoring the need for careful pleading. Immigration counsel should document filing dates, completed prerequisites, inquiries, agency responses, and case-specific prejudice.