A federal court has dismissed a lawsuit filed by Ruchi Rajesh Gupte against several senior immigration officials. Gupte sought to compel the government to act on her immigrant investor visa application, known as the EB-5 visa. The court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case, which has implications for other applicants facing similar delays.
The case, Gupte v. Noem, was filed in the District Court for the District of Columbia under Civil Action No. 2026-0445. Gupte, a national of India, applied for an EB-5 visa after investing more than $800,000 in a new commercial enterprise in Philadelphia. After waiting for over 19 months without a decision on her application, she decided to take legal action.
The EB-5 program allows noncitizens to apply for permanent residency in the United States by investing in approved commercial enterprises that create jobs for U.S. workers. Gupte's petition was filed in June 2024, but she received no feedback from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) during the lengthy waiting period. Frustrated by the delay, Gupte sued several officials from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to compel them to adjudicate her petition.
In her lawsuit, Gupte invoked the Administrative Procedure Act and the Mandamus Act, seeking to compel the DHS to fulfill its duty to process her application. However, the court ruled that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over her claims due to provisions in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) that limit judicial review of immigration decisions.
Judge Trevor N. McFadden, who presided over the case, explained that the INA includes provisions that strip the court of jurisdiction over certain immigration-related actions. He noted, "The plain meaning of th[ose] provision[s], not any interpretative presumption, drives [the Court’s] conclusion today." The court's decision is consistent with previous rulings that have upheld similar jurisdictional limits.
The court highlighted two key provisions of the INA that apply to Gupte's case. The first provision removes jurisdiction over various immigration decisions, including those that are discretionary in nature. The second provision states that the Secretary of Homeland Security has the discretion to process EB-5 petitions in a manner and order they choose. Together, these provisions indicate that the court cannot intervene in the processing of Gupte's visa application.
Gupte attempted to argue that the EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022 imposed specific processing time goals that should compel the DHS to act on her application. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that the language of the Act does not create enforceable deadlines for adjudication. Judge McFadden emphasized that the congressional directive about processing times was not sufficient to override the Department's discretion.
The ruling has significant implications for Gupte and others in similar situations. It reinforces the idea that federal courts have limited jurisdiction over immigration matters and cannot compel the government to act within specific timeframes. This ruling may discourage other applicants from seeking judicial intervention in cases of delayed visa processing.
In the future, individuals facing delays in their immigration applications may have limited options for recourse. The court's decision sets a precedent that emphasizes the discretion granted to immigration officials under the INA, which may affect how similar cases are handled in the future.
As for Gupte, her options appear limited following this ruling. The court's dismissal of her case means that she cannot appeal the decision based on jurisdictional grounds. There are no indications in the court filing about whether Gupte plans to pursue other legal avenues or if she has a related case pending.
The court's decision to dismiss Gupte's lawsuit without addressing the merits underscores the challenges faced by many immigrants navigating the U.S. immigration system. Delays in processing applications can cause significant uncertainty and frustration, but as this case illustrates, the judicial system may not provide a viable solution for those affected.