When the government gets it wrong — or doesn't respond — federal court is an option

Not every immigration case ends at USCIS or in Immigration Court. When a decision is incorrect, or when the government simply stops responding for years, remedies exist in federal court.

It's terrain few immigration firms handle, because it requires actual federal litigation — not just administrative filings.

What we do

• Mandamus actions for unreasonable delay when USCIS has gone years without deciding a case and there is no reasonable explanation.
• Judicial review before the Courts of Appeals of Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decisions.
• Habeas corpus petitions in immigration detention cases.
• District court litigation over administrative decisions that exceed the government's authority or violate due process.

The credential that matters here

Attorney Stacy M. Ehrisman is admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the United States and the federal Courts of Appeals. That isn't decorative: it's the requirement for bringing these actions.

What mandamus is and what it cannot do

A mandamus action is a federal lawsuit that compels an agency to decide a case that has gone too long without an answer. It is filed under the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361, and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(1), which authorizes courts to compel agency action "unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed."

Here is the distinction to understand before anything else: mandamus forces a decision, not an approval. A federal judge can order USCIS to resolve your case. The judge cannot order USCIS to grant it. If the file has an underlying problem, a court order can produce a faster denial.

That is why analyzing the merits before suing is not optional. It comes first.

When a delay becomes "unreasonable"

There is no fixed deadline in the statute. Federal courts apply, case by case, the six-factor TRAC analysis — Telecommunications Research & Action Center v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70 (D.C. Cir. 1984) — which weighs how long it has been, whether Congress set any timetable, the nature of the interest at stake, and the effect of moving this case ahead of others in line.

In practice, what sustains a case is that the filing has been pending well beyond the ranges USCIS publishes for that case type and office, and that ordinary steps — case status inquiry, e-Request, the ombudsman's office, a congressional inquiry — have already been tried without result.

A special case: naturalization stuck after the interview

If USCIS interviewed you for citizenship and has not decided within 120 days, there is a different and stronger route: 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b).

The difference matters. Under that section, the district court does not merely order USCIS to decide: it takes jurisdiction and can decide the case itself. It is a blunter tool than ordinary mandamus, and choosing between the two depends on the exact procedural posture of the case.

Cases that typically qualify

• I-485 adjustment of status with a visa available and no movement at the field office
• I-130 or I-140 petitions sitting years past published times
• N-400 stuck more than 120 days after the interview
• I-601A and I-601 unlawful presence and inadmissibility waivers, where waits have historically been long
• I-765 work permits whose delay causes the person to lose employment authorization
• Advance parole delayed to the point of preventing travel for a family or medical emergency
• Consular administrative processing stalled at the State Department

How the process works

Before suing, it is worth sending a demand letter to the agency and the U.S. Attorney with a draft complaint attached. A real share of cases resolves right there, without filing.

If a suit is needed, the complaint pleads jurisdiction under § 1361, § 1331 and the APA, lays out the filing history and the delay, applies the TRAC factors to the specific case, and asks for an order to adjudicate — not to approve. It is served on the U.S. Attorney's Office for the district, which has 60 days to answer or move to dismiss.

What usually happens in that window is the interesting part: the U.S. Attorney's office contacts USCIS and asks them to decide the case so the suit becomes moot. A substantial share of mandamus cases resolve this way — the agency decides, the case is dismissed, and the applicant gets an answer without real litigation.

If the government does litigate, its usual arguments are that the delay is not unreasonable under TRAC, that the agency has discretion over pacing, that the case is on a security hold, or that administrative remedies were not exhausted.

Where you file if you live in Georgia

Metro Atlanta residents file in the Northern District of Georgia. This is federal court litigation, not an administrative filing with USCIS, and that changes everything: federal civil procedure rules, and on the other side an experienced Assistant U.S. Attorney raising jurisdictional arguments.

Filing on your own is legally permitted. It is not what we recommend.

Will suing USCIS hurt my case?

This is the question we get most. The short answer is that mandamus asks for a legal duty to be performed, and exercising that right is not a valid reason for the agency to treat you worse.

The real risk is a different one and it deserves plain language: if the case has an underlying problem, forcing a decision can accelerate a denial that would otherwise have taken longer to arrive. That is the analysis we run before recommending this route — not whether the delay is frustrating, but whether the file can withstand being decided today.

Other practice areas