UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

(For title on top add your courts name instead for red)

(Just Name of applicant or beneficiary depending on petition type), Plaintiff,
vs.
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Merrick Garland, Attorney General of the United States, Ur Mendoza Jaddou, Director of USCIS, Alejandro Mayorkas, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Markenzy Lapointe, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Defendants. (remember last person will be different for your state and district)
Case No.: [To be assigned] here write case number in pen as in instructions

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Introduction

Plaintiff, (Full Name) ("Plaintiff"), respectfully petitions this Honorable Court for a Writ of Mandamus to compel the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to adjudicate her (get gender right pay attention to all) I-485 (or whatever case type you have) Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (Receipt Number: (your receipt number), which has been subjected to an unreasonable and unjustifiable delay, depriving her of rights and protections guaranteed under federal law.

Jurisdiction and Venue

1. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361, which confers original jurisdiction upon District Courts in actions to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.
2. This Court also has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as this action arises under the laws of the United States, specifically the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.
3. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this District, and Defendants are officers or employees of the United States acting in their official capacities.

Parties

4. Plaintiff, (full name), resides at (your full address), and is seeking adjustment of status based on her lawful marriage under a K-1 visa (adjust to your application/petition types). Plaintiff previously resided in Miami, Florida, where significant actions related to her application occurred, and according to USCIS, the application is still pending at the USCIS Oakland Park Field Office, (edit locations to your own) which is different from the interview location at the Miami Field Office (add your field office if needed if not in field office edit your own way).
5. Defendant, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), is an agency of the United States government responsible for implementing and enforcing immigration laws. USCIS’s headquarters is located at 5900 Capital Gateway Drive, Camp Springs, MD 20588.
6. Defendant, Merrick Garland, is the Attorney General of the United States, with an official address at the U.S. Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20530-0001. He is responsible for overseeing the lawful execution of federal laws. He is sued in his official capacity.
7. Defendant, Ur Mendoza Jaddou, is the Director of USCIS, tasked with supervising the agency’s administration of immigration applications and petitions. She is sued in her official capacity. Her official address is USCIS Office of the Chief Counsel, 5900 Capital Gateway Drive, Mail Stop 2120, Camp Springs, MD 20588-0009.
8. Defendant, Alejandro Mayorkas, is the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the parent agency of USCIS. He is sued in his official capacity. His official address is U.S. Department of Homeland Security, c/o Office of the General Counsel, 2707 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave SE, Mail Stop 0485, Washington, DC 20528-0485.
9. Defendant, Markenzy Lapointe, is the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida and represents the federal government’s interests within this jurisdiction. He is sued in his official capacity. His official address is United States Attorney's Office, 99 NE 4th Street, Miami, FL 33132-2131. (remember this one will be different for your location)

Factual Background

10.  Plaintiff filed an I-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (Receipt Number: your receipt number) on (Date of receipt notice), pursuant to her lawful entry into the United States on a K-1 visa (adjust to your type) and subsequent bona fide marriage to a United States citizen (edit as needed). As of the date of this filing, it has been about 2 years and 7 months since the I-485 to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status application was filed. (edit as needed).
11. Plaintiff was approved for the K-1 visa, which was filed on (date filed), and approved on (approval date if applicable). After USCIS approval of the K-1 visa, Plaintiff filed an I-212 Application for Permission to Reapply for Admission into the United States After Deportation or Removal, which was approved on January 26, 2022. It has been about 4 years and 10 months since the start of this immigration journey. (This whole thing you can pretty much edit to your needs and case.)
12. Despite completing all prerequisites for adjudication, Plaintiff’s application remains pending, with no decision rendered as of the date of this filing, constituting an unreasonable delay under the APA and relevant immigration laws.
13. Plaintiff has diligently sought updates regarding the status of her case by contacting USCIS multiple times, including:

• Numerous calls and chat inquiries to USCIS customer service (over 10 times) without resolution.
• September 11, 2024 (your date put): Inquiry made through USCIS customer service (referral number the referral number if you have).
• December 16, 2024(your date put): Follow-up inquiry through the same channel (service number if you have)
• December 25, 2024(your date put): Additional inquiry met with instructions to continue waiting (inquiry id if you have). (All that in number 13 should be edited to your own info)

14. Plaintiff sought assistance from external resources, including:

• Contacting Senator Rick Scott’s office on (date), with no resolution.
• Contacting Representative (your representative/congress person) office on (date), with no resolution.
• Contacting Representative (if you have more than 1 rep/congress) office on (date), with no resolution.
• Contacting the USCIS Ombudsman on (Date), with no result (request number the number). (The whole number 14 should be edited to your personal stuff)

15. The prolonged delay has caused significant emotional distress, financial instability, and uncertainty for Plaintiff and her family. Her employment authorization document (EAD) is nearing expiration, placing her livelihood and stability in jeopardy. (edit to your needs)
16. USCIS’s delay is inconsistent with its published processing times for similar applications, which typically conclude within months of the adjustment interview. This protracted inaction is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. See Al Karim v. Holder, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123559 (D. Colo. Nov. 19, 2010) (finding a three-year delay in adjudicating adjustment of status application unreasonable under the APA).
17. The delay also violates USCIS’s statutory obligation under 8 U.S.C. § 1571(b), which establishes a congressional mandate to process immigration benefits within a reasonable time.
18. Delays of this magnitude have been held unreasonable in cases such as Saleh v. Ridge, 367 F. Supp. 2d 508 (S.D.N.Y. 2005), where the court granted mandamus relief due to USCIS’s failure to act within a reasonable timeframe.

Legal Argument

19. Plaintiff has a clear and indisputable right to the relief requested. Under 5 U.S.C. § 706(1), the APA authorizes courts to compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed. USCIS’s failure to adjudicate Plaintiff’s application violates its statutory obligations and denies Plaintiff the timely resolution to which she is entitled.
20. Courts have consistently held that delays exceeding published processing times constitute an unreasonable delay under the APA. See Han Cao v. Upchurch, 496 F. Supp. 2d 569 (E.D. Pa. 2007).
21. The Defendants owe Plaintiff a nondiscretionary duty to process and adjudicate her application within a reasonable time, as mandated by the INA, APA, and relevant regulations.
22. Plaintiff has exhausted all available administrative remedies, including repeated inquiries to USCIS and seeking assistance from elected representatives and the USCIS Ombudsman. Despite these efforts, Defendants have failed to act.
23. The Court’s intervention is necessary to redress this inaction and ensure compliance with statutory and regulatory duties. Further delay risks irreparable harm to Plaintiff, including loss of employment authorization and financial hardship. (edit if needed)

Relief Sought

24. Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court:

• Issue a writ of mandamus compelling Defendants to adjudicate Plaintiff’s I-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (Receipt Number: receipt number) without further delay;
• Award Plaintiff reasonable costs and attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412; and (I also thought this part was strange but is common in writ of mandamus and should be left there)
• Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Conclusion

Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant the relief sought and compel Defendants to promptly adjudicate her application, ensuring compliance with statutory mandates and protections. The prolonged delay has caused significant hardship, and timely resolution is imperative to avoid further distress and financial instability.

Signature:

(full name)
(house number street)
(city state zip)
(email)
(phone number)
Date:

Exhibits:

• Exhibit A: Copy of I-485 receipt notice (Receipt Number: number).
• Exhibit B: Copy of interview notice.
• Exhibit C: Copy of biometrics appointment notice.
• Exhibit D: Copy of I-212 approval notice.
• Exhibit E: Copy of K-1 visa approval notice.
• Exhibit F: Copies of correspondence with USCIS.
• Exhibit G: Documentation of follow-up attempts:

• USCIS contacts on September 11, December 16, and December 25, 2024.
• Senator Rick Scott’s office contact on December 26, 2024.
• Representative (your rep/congress)’s office contact on December 26, 2024.
• Representative (your rep/congress) office contact on December 26, 2024.
• USCIS Ombudsman contact on December 25, 2024.

Affidavit

I, (name), declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.