Ortega Cortez v. Edlow

A Notice of Supplemental Authority was filed in the case on May 13, 2026. The docket entry provides no information about the content of the authority cited or which party submitted it.

The docket entry reflects that a document titled "Response in Opposition to Motion" was filed on April 28, 2026. The entry does not specify which motion is being opposed, who filed the response, or any hearing or deadline information.

A Notice of Supplemental Authority was filed in the case on 2026-04-27. The docket entry provides no additional details about the content of the notice or which party filed it.

A Notice of Supplemental Authority was filed in the case on April 24, 2026. The docket entry provides no further detail about the contents or purpose of the notice.

Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim, and alternatively asked the court to stay the case and administratively close it; the filing argues jurisdictional bars under 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) and that mandamus/APA relief are inappropriate. Responses to the motions are due April 27, 2026.

The plaintiff filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority on March 30, 2026, in connection with her pending Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 7).

The plaintiff filed a notice attaching USCIS communications (dated February 27, 2026) stating the plaintiff’s Form I-765 and Form I-131 remain pending and that USCIS "cannot provide a completion date at this time." The filing notes the plaintiff’s view that the delay is due to an indefinite hold under USCIS policy memoranda and asserts the applications could likely be adjudicated quickly if that hold were enjoined.

The plaintiff filed a reply brief in support of her expedited motion for a preliminary injunction, arguing the court has jurisdiction and the plaintiff has standing and is likely to succeed on mandamus and APA claims challenging an agency policy that places a categorical hold on certain immigration benefit adjudications. The reply asks the court to grant the motion, enjoin defendants from applying the hold to the plaintiff’s benefit applications, and order adjudication of those applications within 30 days, and it incorporates arguments from a related case and recent decisions.

Respondents filed an opposition to the petitioner’s expedited motion for a preliminary injunction, asking the court to deny the motion and dismiss the case and arguing lack of standing, jurisdictional bars under 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), unavailability of mandamus, and that the petitioner’s statutory and constitutional claims are unlikely to succeed; counsel Kelsi R. Romero was added for the respondents and the filing includes an attached Presidential Proclamation. Replies are due by 2026-03-09.

The plaintiff filed a notice of supplemental authority in connection with her pending motion for a preliminary injunction; the filing was entered on 2026-02-28.

The plaintiff filed a notice attaching the certified administrative records for USCIS Policy Memoranda PM-602-0192 and PM-602-0194, with two exhibits labeled as the certified records for each memorandum.

The plaintiff filed an amended notice of proof of service stating that all defendants were served via FedEx on February 11, 2026, and attached FedEx delivery confirmations plus an email from an Assistant U.S. Attorney confirming assignment to the case. The filing does not set any new court dates, deadlines, or hearings.

The plaintiff filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority attaching a February 20, 2026 N.D. Cal. order in Varniab v. Edlow, which granted a preliminary injunction enjoining application of USCIS PM-602-0192 to the Varniab plaintiffs' Forms I-765 and I-485 and ordered adjudication of those forms within 30 days; the notice cites that order in support of the plaintiff's pending motion for a preliminary injunction in this case.

The plaintiff filed an expedited motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin defendants’ national‑origin hold on adjudicating the plaintiff’s I-485, I-765, and I-131 under USCIS PM-602-0192 and PM-602-0194 and to compel adjudication within 30 days; the filing requests expedited briefing and a hearing. The docket notes that responses to the motion are due by 3/4/2026.

The plaintiff filed an acknowledgment of service indicating service on all defendants; the docket text was later modified to state that no defendant names are listed.

The plaintiff filed a notice of proposed summonses and the court issued summons directing the defendants to serve and file an answer or a Rule 12 motion in response to the complaint; a proof-of-service form was included but left blank. The entry reports no calendar dates and notes standard response time periods tied to service of the summons.

The clerk issued summonses to multiple named defendants notifying them that a lawsuit has been filed and instructing them to serve and file an answer or a Rule 12 motion with the plaintiff’s counsel and the court. The summonses state the standard response periods (21 days after service, or 60 days if the United States or certain federal officers are served) but do not set specific calendar dates in this entry.

The plaintiff filed a complaint and petition for a writ of mandamus asking the court to block application of two USCIS policy memoranda and to compel federal agencies to adjudicate three pending immigration forms (I-485, I-765, I-131). The complaint raises mandamus, APA, statutory nondiscrimination, Fifth Amendment equal protection, ultra vires, and related claims and requests an order requiring adjudication within 30 days of the court's order.

The clerk issued a notice assigning the case to Judge Jacqueline Becerra and advising the parties that, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), U.S. Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres is available to handle any or all proceedings if the parties consent. The notice instructs that parties who agree may complete and file the court's consent form from the court website and that it is not necessary to file a document indicating lack of consent.