A federal court has dismissed a lawsuit filed by Shuowen Huang against the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) regarding delays in processing his EB-5 visa application. The case, filed in October 2026, raised concerns about the length of time it took for USCIS to make a decision on Huang's application. The ruling impacts individuals awaiting similar visa applications, highlighting the challenges faced in the immigration process.
The case, formally known as Huang v. USCIS Immigration Investor Program Office (Civil Action No. 2026-1627), originated when Huang, a New Jersey resident, filed a petition for an EB-5 visa in May 2024. This visa category allows qualified immigrants to obtain permanent residency in the United States by investing in a new commercial enterprise that creates jobs. Huang's application remained undecided for over two years, prompting him to seek judicial intervention.
In his complaint, Huang argued that the delay was unreasonable and sought a court order requiring USCIS to adjudicate his application within thirty days. However, USCIS responded with a motion to dismiss the case, asserting that the court lacked jurisdiction over the matter and that Huang's claims did not sufficiently state a legal basis for relief.
Judge Royce C. Lamberth presided over the case and ultimately ruled in favor of USCIS. The court granted the motion to dismiss, stating, "The Court recognizes, however, that the D.C. Circuit has expressed concern over the tension between Local Rule 7(b) and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." This ruling indicated that Huang's failure to respond to USCIS's motion led the court to treat it as conceded.
In addition to procedural issues, the court examined whether it had jurisdiction to review Huang's claims. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) limits federal court jurisdiction over certain immigration matters, particularly those involving discretionary actions by the Secretary of Homeland Security. The court found that the INA stripped it of jurisdiction in this case, stating, "The solitary use of the word 'may' connoting discretion does not amount to clear and convincing evidence that Congress sought to strip courts of jurisdiction here."
Furthermore, the court addressed Huang's claim of unreasonable delay. To succeed in such a claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the agency failed to take a required action and that the delay was unreasonable. The court noted that while Huang had alleged a discrete agency action, he did not establish that the delay was unreasonable enough to warrant judicial intervention.
The court concluded, "In sum, the Plaintiff has not stated a claim for unreasonable delay, and his Complaint must be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule 12(b)(6)." This ruling underscores the challenges faced by individuals navigating the immigration system and the limited recourse available through the courts.
The impact of this ruling extends beyond Huang, as it sets a precedent for similar cases involving delays in immigration processing. Many individuals seeking EB-5 visas and other immigration benefits may find themselves in similar situations, facing long waits without clear recourse. The decision highlights the complexities of the immigration system and the discretion afforded to USCIS in processing applications.
Looking ahead, it is unclear whether Huang will appeal the decision. The court's ruling leaves him with limited options, as the dismissal was based on jurisdictional grounds and the failure to state a claim. There are no indications of related cases currently pending that could influence this outcome.