Current stage: Resolved
The court granted the plaintiffs’ emergency motion for a preliminary injunction, enjoining the listed USCIS policy memoranda from being applied to the plaintiffs’ pending employment-authorization application and ordering adjudication within ten days. Subsequently, after a stay and further briefing, the plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal following approval of one plaintiff’s adjustment application, and the court denied the pending motions as moot.
Deadlines, hearings, and court-ordered dates from this docket
Petitioners must serve a copy of the Complaint and Emergency Motion on the respondents by this date.
Remote status conference before the court at 02:30 PM.
Respondents must file their response to the Emergency Motion by this date.
Petitioners must file a reply addressing the jurisdictional issues by 5:00 PM on this date.
Defendants must serve an answer to the complaint or a Rule 12 motion within 21 days after service (service reflected as 2026-02-02).
Counsel for defendants must provide written notice of the court's order to all defendants and file a copy of that notice on the docket by March 2, 2026 at 5:00 PM.
Defendants must adjudicate the plaintiff's Form I-765 and inform the plaintiff of the decision, and if denied, provide the reasons for denial, within ten days of the order (on or before March 9, 2026).
If the United States or a federal agency was served, the government must serve an answer or Rule 12 motion within 60 days after service (service reflected as 2026-02-02).
Defendants must file an answer or other response to the complaint by this date pursuant to the court's order.
The plaintiff must file their response to the defendants' Motion to Dismiss by June 15, 2026.
Extracted from court filings. Check linked sources for official deadlines.
July 10, 2026
Key EventThe presiding judge entered an electronic order stating that the defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 25) and the plaintiffs' Cross-Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Dkt. 29) are denied as moot.
July 9, 2026
The plaintiffs filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), stating that defendants approved one plaintiff’s adjustment-of-status application and issued that plaintiff a lawful permanent resident card. The notice states that the plaintiffs hereby dismiss the action and includes a certificate of service.
June 24, 2026
On 2026-06-24 the district judge entered an electronic order granting the Joint Motion to Stay Proceedings (Dkt. 31). The entry does not state the duration or specific terms of the stay.
June 23, 2026
A document titled "Joint Motion to Stay Proceedings" was filed on 2026-06-23; the docket entry lists counsel for the defendants as the filing party. The motion asks the court to pause further proceedings, but the entry does not indicate any ruling or whether the court granted the request.
June 15, 2026
The plaintiffs filed a memorandum opposing the defendants’ motion to dismiss and in support of their cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing the agency’s country-specific adjudication hold is unlawful and urging immediate adjudication of the pending adjustment application; the filing includes an exhibit titled “Dorcas - Notice of Appeal.”
June 15, 2026
The plaintiffs filed a Cross-Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) opposing the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and arguing the defendants’ policy placing holds on adjudications for nationals of certain countries is arbitrary and unreasonable. They ask the court to accept jurisdiction, deny the Motion to Dismiss and enter judgment for the plaintiffs, compel immediate adjudication of a pending I-485, vacate specified policy guidance, declare violations of the APA, Mandamus Act, and INA, and award costs and fees.
May 27, 2026
The court granted the plaintiff's assented-to motion for an extension of time and set a new deadline requiring the plaintiff to file a response to defendants' Motion to Dismiss on June 15, 2026.
May 26, 2026
The plaintiffs filed an assented-to motion requesting an extension until June 15, 2026 to file their response/reply to the defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 25). The docket entry was modified on May 27, 2026 to edit the docket text.
May 14, 2026
On 2026-05-14, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim; the filing includes a Local Rule 7.1 certification indicating the plaintiffs oppose the requested relief and a certificate of service.
May 14, 2026
Defendants filed a memorandum supporting their motion to dismiss, arguing the plaintiffs’ claims are partially moot because the agency approved the I-765 and I-130 applications, that there is no statutory or regulatory obligation to adjudicate the remaining I-485 within a set time, that the court lacks jurisdiction to review the agency’s interim “hold” policy, and asking the court to dismiss the complaint.
March 24, 2026
Key EventThe court granted the defendants' assented-to motion for an extension of time and set May 14, 2026 as the new deadline to file an answer or other response to the complaint. This is a court order granting the extension.
March 24, 2026
Defendants filed an assented-to motion requesting an extension of time to May 14, 2026 to file an answer or other response to the complaint. This is a motion seeking an agreed deadline extension.
March 24, 2026
An attorney filed a notice of appearance on behalf of a named defendant. This is a routine appearance filing.
March 2, 2026
Defendants filed a notice regarding the court's Memorandum and Order (the filing includes an exhibit). This appears to be a filing that references the court's Order.
February 27, 2026
Key EventThe court granted the plaintiff's emergency motion for a preliminary injunction and enjoined application of the December 2, 2025 and January 1, 2026 USCIS policy memoranda (PM-602-0192 and PM-602-0194) to the plaintiff's pending Form I-765. The court ordered defendants to adjudicate that I-765 within ten days and notify the plaintiff, required defense counsel to provide written notice of the order to all defendants and file a copy on the docket by March 2, 2026 at 5:00 PM, and waived any bond under Rule 65(c).
February 20, 2026
Petitioners filed a reply to defendants' opposition, arguing the policy memoranda are final agency action and that statutory limits on review do not bar the court's jurisdiction. The filing is a reply memorandum.
February 18, 2026
Key EventThe court ordered petitioners to file a reply addressing the jurisdictional issues raised by defendants no later than 5:00 PM on February 20, 2026. This is an electronic order setting that reply deadline.
February 16, 2026
Defendants filed an opposition to the petitioners' Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction, arguing lack of jurisdiction and that the policy memoranda are reasonable under the APA, and requesting denial of the motion. This is the defendants' response filing.
February 11, 2026
Key EventThe court set a remote status conference for February 11, 2026 at 2:30 PM before the assigned district judge. This is a scheduling notice for that status conference.
February 11, 2026
Key EventA status conference was held by video conference on February 11, 2026; the clerk's notes state the court sought clarification about the petitioner's complaint. The entry identifies counsel and the court reporter contact.
February 11, 2026
An attorney entered a notice of appearance on behalf of several named defendants. This is a routine appearance filing.
February 10, 2026
A summons return executed as to the U.S. Attorney was filed and entered on the docket; the entry indicates service was returned executed. No further detail is provided in this entry.
February 10, 2026
A summons return executed as to the U.S. Attorney was filed and entered on the docket; the entry indicates service was returned executed. No further detail is provided in this entry.
February 10, 2026
A summons return executed was filed and entered on the docket; the entry indicates the summons was returned executed. No further detail is provided in this entry.
February 10, 2026
A summons return executed was filed and entered on the docket; the entry indicates the summons was returned executed. No further detail is provided in this entry.
February 10, 2026
A summons return executed was filed showing the summons was served (the filing includes USPS tracking/return-receipt documentation). The return of service is on the docket.
February 10, 2026
A summons return executed was filed and entered on the docket; the entry indicates the summons was returned executed. No further detail is provided in this entry.
February 6, 2026
Key EventThe court ordered respondents to file a response to the Emergency Motion by February 16, 2026, and ordered petitioners to serve the complaint and emergency motion on the respondents by February 9, 2026. This is an electronic order setting those deadlines.
February 6, 2026
Petitioners filed a memorandum in support of their emergency motion, arguing the agency policy memoranda place an indefinite hold on adjudications and asserting APA and Mandamus Act claims seeking immediate adjudication. The memorandum includes factual and legal arguments and a certificate of service.
February 6, 2026
Petitioners filed an Emergency Motion for a preliminary injunction asking the court to order immediate adjudication of a pending I-765 and issuance of an employment authorization card within 5–10 days, alleging imminent job loss. The filing includes an affidavit and supporting materials.
January 27, 2026
The court entered a standing order regarding motion practice. This is a routine standing-order entry from the assigned judge.
January 27, 2026
The case was assigned to a district judge (Angel Kelley); if the trial judge refers any matter to a magistrate judge it will go to Magistrate Judge Jessica D. Hedges. This is an administrative case-assignment notice.
January 27, 2026
On 2026-01-27 the plaintiffs filed a federal complaint seeking declaratory, mandamus, and injunctive relief to compel USCIS to adjudicate their pending I-130, I-485, and I-765 applications and to set aside or vacate Policy Alert PA-2025-26 and Policy Memoranda PM-602-0192 and PM-602-0194 as unlawful. They allege they were interviewed on 2026-01-07, that adjudication was withheld under the cited policies, and that they face imminent harm because an employment authorization expires on 2026-02-14.
January 27, 2026
A summons was issued for multiple defendants, and counsel who receive notice electronically were instructed to download, complete, and serve the summons in accordance with the rules. This entry reflects issuance of the summons only.