A federal court has dismissed a lawsuit filed by Fernando Perez Correa Camarena against the U.S. government, which sought to compel action on his delayed EB-5 visa petition. Correa, a Mexican national, invested $800,000 in a regional center in a high unemployment area, hoping to secure an investor visa. The case, filed in the District Court for the District of Columbia, highlights the challenges faced by immigrants navigating the U.S. visa process.

The court's ruling, issued by Judge John D. Bates on June 29, 2026, comes after Correa waited nearly two years for a decision on his visa petition, far exceeding the congressional goal of adjudicating such petitions within 120 days. This delay has raised concerns for many immigrants who invest significant amounts of money in hopes of obtaining legal residency in the United States.

Correa's lawsuit, filed under Civil Action No. 2026-0730, argued that the government had a duty to adjudicate his petition in a timely manner. He claimed that the extended wait time constituted unreasonable delay, violating his rights under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Mandamus Act. However, the court found that Correa did not sufficiently prove that the delay was unreasonable, leading to the dismissal of his case.

Background

Fernando Perez Correa Camarena is a Mexican national who submitted a Form I-526E petition in July 2024 to obtain an EB-5 visa. This visa category is designed for immigrants who invest in U.S. businesses and create jobs for American workers. Correa's investment was made in a regional center located in an area with high unemployment, which is a requirement for the EB-5 program.

Correa's petition was filed with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), which is responsible for processing such applications. After waiting for almost two years without a decision, Correa sought legal recourse. He filed a complaint on March 2, 2026, asking the court to compel the government to act on his petition, arguing that the delay was unreasonable and that he had a right to a timely decision.

The government responded by filing a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction to review the delay in processing the petition. They contended that the decision to process visa applications is largely discretionary and that Correa's claims did not sufficiently demonstrate that the delay was unreasonable. The court was tasked with determining whether it had jurisdiction to hear the case and whether Correa had a valid claim regarding the delay.

The Ruling

In its ruling, the court concluded that it had jurisdiction to review Correa's claims. Judge Bates noted that there was no clear evidence that Congress intended to bar judicial review of the processing of EB-5 visa petitions. However, the court ultimately ruled against Correa, stating that he failed to demonstrate that the delay in processing his petition was unreasonable.

The court ruled, "Correa has failed to plausibly allege unreasonable delay, particularly because the government applies a rule of reason to adjudicating this type of petition and granting Correa relief would lead to him jumping the line."

The judge emphasized that while Correa's wait time exceeded the congressional goal of 120 days, it did not reach a level of delay deemed unreasonable by legal standards. The court also noted that the government had a rule of reason in place for processing petitions, which considers various factors, including prioritization of rural applications.

Impact

The ruling has significant implications for other immigrants in similar situations. It sets a precedent that delays in visa processing, even if they exceed congressional expectations, may not be sufficient grounds for legal action unless the delay can be shown to be egregious. This decision may discourage other applicants from pursuing lawsuits based solely on extended wait times.

Correa's case also highlights the complexities and frustrations many immigrants face when navigating the U.S. immigration system. The court's ruling may reinforce the perception that the system is slow and unresponsive, especially for those who have invested substantial resources in their applications.

What's Next

Correa's case has been dismissed, but he may have the option to appeal the decision. The court dismissed the case without prejudice, meaning Correa could potentially address the deficiencies in his claims and refile in the future. Details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases or further actions Correa may pursue.