Current stage: Preliminary Injunction
The plaintiffs filed a multi-plaintiff complaint challenging USCIS policy memoranda and moved for a preliminary injunction. After briefing and supplemental scheduling, the magistrate judge granted the motion in part on 2026-04-29, enjoining USCIS from applying the indefinite-adjudication-hold policies in PM-0192 and PM-0194 to any Form I-765 filed by plaintiffs and ordering USCIS to resume adjudicating those I-765 applications consistent with its non-hold policies; the defendant later answered the complaint.
Deadlines, hearings, and court-ordered dates from this docket
Defendant was instructed to file a consent or declination to proceed before a magistrate judge by this date.
Opposition to the preliminary-injunction motion was due by this date.
Plaintiffs' reply to the opposition was due by this date.
Hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction rescheduled for 2:00 PM in San Francisco, Courtroom A, 15th Floor before Magistrate Judge Alex G. Tse.
Parties must file a joint statement answering the court's questions about advancing/consolidating trial with the preliminary-injunction hearing and related issues by this date.
Rescheduled hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction set for 10:00 AM.
Extracted from court filings. Check linked sources for official deadlines.
May 11, 2026
The federal defendant filed an answer to the complaint on 2026-05-11. The filing responds to the allegations in the operative complaint.
April 29, 2026
Key EventThe court issued an order on the preliminary-injunction motion, granting the motion in part and denying it in part. The order found the plaintiffs likely to prevail on their APA claim regarding the indefinite adjudication hold and enjoined USCIS from applying the indefinite-adjudication-hold policies in PM-0192 and PM-0194 to any Form I-765 filed by any plaintiff, directing USCIS to resume adjudicating those I-765 applications consistent with its non-hold policies; the court declined to order adjudication within 30 days.
April 25, 2026
A miscellaneous notice (other) was filed on 2026-04-25; the docket entry provides no further detail about its substance. It appears to be an administrative docket filing.
April 24, 2026
A non-motion response was filed on 2026-04-24; the docket label provides no substantive detail about the content. The entry appears to be a routine filing related to ongoing proceedings.
April 21, 2026
Key EventThe court issued an order requiring the parties to file a joint statement addressing questions about advancing and consolidating the trial with the preliminary-injunction hearing and rescheduled the PI hearing to 2026-05-01 at 10:00 AM. The joint statement was ordered due on 2026-04-24.
April 17, 2026
Key EventA related-case order was entered by Judge Susan van Keulen on 2026-04-17 addressing whether particular cases are related; the order concludes certain recently filed cases are not related to a previously assigned case. The order directs non-related cases to be considered by other judges as appropriate.
April 16, 2026
A plaintiff filed a notice providing supplemental authority from other district cases in support of the preliminary-injunction motion. The filing supplies recent decisions for the court's consideration.
April 9, 2026
The clerk issued a notice rescheduling the preliminary-injunction motion hearing to 2026-04-24 at 2:00 PM in San Francisco, Courtroom A before Magistrate Judge Alex G. Tse. The entry is a text-only docket notice of the new hearing time.
April 6, 2026
Plaintiffs filed their reply in support of the preliminary-injunction motion on 2026-04-06, attaching multiple exhibits. The filing supplements the motion practice with additional materials.
April 2, 2026
A summons was returned executed for the named plaintiffs as to all defendants, with attached exhibits. The entry indicates the return of service was filed.
March 30, 2026
The federal defendant filed an opposition/response to the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction on 2026-03-30, including several declarations. The filing opposes the requested preliminary relief.
March 27, 2026
A notice of voluntary dismissal of one plaintiff was filed by one named plaintiff. The entry reflects the plaintiff's filed notice but does not state the court has entered a dismissal order.
March 25, 2026
Substitution of counsel was filed, showing a different attorney replacing prior counsel for the federal defendant. The entry records the change in representation.
March 25, 2026
The federal defendant filed a consent/declination form regarding proceeding before a magistrate judge. The entry indicates the defendant's selection on the magistrate-jurisdiction form.
March 24, 2026
Key EventThe court issued an order denying a motion to relate this case to another matter, signed by Judge Susan van Keulen on 2026-03-24. The order determines the cases should not be related for case assignment purposes.
March 16, 2026
A notice of appearance was filed on behalf of the named federal defendant. The entry shows counsel entered an appearance in the case.
March 16, 2026
Clerk's notice (marked to be disregarded for an earlier incorrect attachment) directed the defendant to file a consent or declination to proceed before a magistrate judge by 2026-03-23 and notes service by first-class mail. The entry corrects an earlier docketing mistake.
March 16, 2026
Clerk's notice directed the defendant to file a consent or declination to proceed before a magistrate judge by 2026-03-23 and indicates the notice was served by first-class mail. This is the corrected notice after a prior docketing error.
March 15, 2026
Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction with supporting exhibits and requested a hearing; the filing set a hearing for 2026-04-24 at 10:00 AM and set response and reply deadlines (responses due 2026-03-30, replies due 2026-04-06).
March 15, 2026
Plaintiffs filed a consent/declination form regarding proceeding before a magistrate judge. The filing indicates plaintiffs' position on magistrate-judge adjudication.
March 9, 2026
Plaintiffs filed a notice regarding a related-case issue, attaching a motion to consider cases related. The entry indicates plaintiffs sought the court consider relatedness with another case.
March 9, 2026
A procedural order specific to immigration mandamus cases was entered; no substantive details are provided in the docket text. The entry appears to be a standard case-management order.
March 9, 2026
A summons was issued directed to the named federal defendants. The entry notes the issuance but does not describe return or service.
March 9, 2026
The case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Alex G. Tse, and the docket instructs that counsel is responsible for service; a consent/declination to proceed before a magistrate judge was due by 2026-03-23. The entry also notes a scheduling order would issue within two business days.
March 8, 2026
A proposed summons was filed with the complaint. No additional detail about service or return is provided in this entry.
March 8, 2026
A multi-plaintiff complaint was filed challenging USCIS policy memoranda, with several exhibits and a summons attached. The filing includes two USCIS policy memoranda as exhibits and requests relief against named federal defendants.