JIGAR BABARIA, ET AL V. ANTONY BLINKEN, ET AL, No. 22-16700 (9th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
A group of individuals from India, who have been lawfully working in the United States for years and waiting in line for more than a decade for their immigrant visas, sued the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and U.S. Department of State. They sought to compel the USCIS to act on their applications for adjustment of status to become lawful permanent residents. However, the USCIS had not processed their applications because the State Department revised its forecast and concluded that it had hit the visa cap for the year. The plaintiffs argued that the USCIS and the State Department were improperly interpreting the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) by requiring an immigrant visa to be available at the time of adjudication rather than at the time of filing the application.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district courts' denials of injunctive relief. The court concluded that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claims. The court found that the government's interpretation of the INA, requiring an immigrant visa to be available before the government can adjudicate an application for adjustment of status, was consistent with the INA and reasonably filled in a procedural detail left open by Congress. The court also noted that the regulation was not in conflict with the statutory text and was left in the government's discretion by Congress. The court further opined that the plaintiffs' proposed rule could result in inefficiency and further delay.
Court Description: Immigration/Preliminary Injunctions In consolidated appeals, the panel affirmed the district courts’ denials of injunctive relief in cases in which plaintiffs sued to compel U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to act on their applications for adjustment of status.
Plaintiffs are natives of India who have lawfully worked in the United States for years. Their employers sponsored them for immigrant visas, and plaintiffs have been waiting in a visa queue for more than 10 years. After the State Department estimated that it had reached plaintiffs’ places in line, plaintiffs applied for adjustment of status to become lawful permanent residents, but the State Department then revised its forecast and concluded that it had hit the visa cap for the year. Before the district courts, plaintiffs moved to enjoin the government from considering the availability of visas when evaluating their applications. * The Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez, Chief United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation. The panel concluded that the district court properly denied injunctive relief, determining that plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claims. Plaintiffs contended that 8 C.F.R. § 245.2(a)(5)(ii) violates Congressional intent by requiring an immigrant visa to be available before the government can adjudicate an adjustment application. Looking to the statute governing adjustment of status, 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a), the panel explained that nothing in its text conflicts with the regulation, and the Immigration and Nationality Act is otherwise silent on the issue. The panel also rejected plaintiffs’ arguments that other statutory provisions, as well as legislative and regulatory history, supported their positions. Further, the panel explained that the regulation is consistent 8 U.S.C.
§ 1255 and reasonably fills in a procedural detail left open by Congress.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.