Grover v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services et al, No. 3:2021cv02408 - Document 55 (N.D. Tex. 2021)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court Denies Plaintiff's 48 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. (Ordered by Judge Jane J. Boyle on 10/28/2021) (svc)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Grover v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services et al Doc. 55 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION VIKAS GROVER and SHVETA SHARMA, Plaintiffs, V. U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, ET AL., Defendants. § § § § § § § § § § No. 3:21-cv-2408-B-BN MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs, citizens of India, filed suit against the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the U.S. Department of State, and officials of both agencies in their official capacities under the Administrative Procedures Act and the federal mandamus statute requesting, among other relief, that the Court compel the defendants to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ pending I-485 applications for lawful permanent residency before October 31, 2021 or, alternatively, compel the defendants to reserve visa numbers for Plaintiffs to allow for the adjudication of their applications after a forthcoming November 1, 2021 visa bulletin “retrogression.” See Dkt. No. 47 (second amended complaint). Plaintiffs also move for an emergency temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction as to this requested relief. See Dkt. Nos. 48 & 49. As ordered, see Dkt. No. 51, Defendants filed an expedited response to Plaintiffs’ request for a TRO and PI, see Dkt. Nos. 52 & 53. And Plaintiffs replied. See Dkt. No. 54. Temporary and accelerated injunctive relief—through either a TRO or a PI—“is an extraordinary remedy which requires the movant to unequivocally show the need for its issuance.” -1- Dockets.Justia.com Valley v. Rapides Par. Sch. Bd., 118 F.3d 1047, 1050 (5th Cir. 1997) (citing Allied Mktg. Grp., Inc. v. C.D.L. Mktg., Inc., 878 F.2d 806, 809 (5th Cir. 1989)). So, to obtain either a TRO or a PI, Plaintiffs must unequivocally “show (1) a substantial likelihood that he will prevail on the merits, (2) a substantial threat that he will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted, (3) his threatened injury outweighs the threatened harm to the party whom he seeks to enjoin, and (4) granting the preliminary injunction will not disserve the public interest.” Bluefield Water Ass'n, Inc. v. City of Starkville, Miss., 577 F.3d 250, 252-53 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Canal Auth. of State of Fla. v. Callaway, 489 F.2d 567, 572 (5th Cir. 1974). But Plaintiffs have not shown a substantial likelihood that they will prevail on the merits of their case because they have failed to unequivocally demonstrate that the Court has jurisdiction to provide the relief that they seek. The Court is persuaded that I-485 applicants do not possess “a ‘clear and certain’ right to have [their] I-485 application[s] adjusted within [a certain number of days] of [the application’s] filing—or that the USCIS has a ‘plainly prescribed’ duty to process the application within [a set] time frame.” Bian v. Clinton, 605 F.3d 249, 255 (5th Cir. 2010) (in which suit was brought under both the APA and the mandamus statute, and the Fifth Circuit concluded “that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Bian’s claim, as Congress has expressly precluded judicial review of the USCIS’s pace of adjudication when the agency acts within its discretion and pursuant to the regulations that the agency deems necessary for carrying out its statutory grant of authority”), vacated as moot, 2010 WL 3633770 (5th Cir. Sept. 16, 2010); cf. Melot v. Bergami, 970 F.3d 596, 599 n.11 (5th Cir. 2020) (finding persuasive a “thoughtful opinion” from the Tenth Circuit “although [that opinion was] vacated as moot on rehearing”). -2- The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction [Dkt. Nos. 48]. SO ORDERED. DATE: October 28, 2021. _________________________________ JANE J. BOYLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -3-
]]>
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.
