Ayala v. Jaddou: Fifth-Circuit District Court Sets a Steep Jurisdictional Bar for I-130 Delay Lawsuits
U.S. District Court, N.D. Texas (Dallas Division) — Mar. 6 2025
1. Why this case matters
Most “delay” cases target State-Department visa processing, but Ayala v. Jaddou shows how hard it can be to sue USCIS itself—especially inside the Fifth Circuit. Senior Judge A. Joe Fish dismissed the suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, holding that a three-year wait on a family-based I-130 petition is not yet “unreasonable” when the National Benefits Center’s own public queue is roughly four years. The opinion reinforces recent Fifth-Circuit precedent (Li v. Jaddou, 2023) that courts cannot compel faster action without a statutory benchmark.
2. Factual backdrop
| Date | Event |
| Mar 3 2022 | U.S.-citizen petitioner Santiago Ayala files an I-130 on behalf of his adopted minor daughter. |
| Mar 2022 – Feb 2025 | File routed to the National Benefits Center (NBC) and remains pending. |
| Feb 9 2025 | NBC’s posted time to complete 80 % of similar cases: 48.5 months. |
| Feb 15 2025 | Ayala sues under APA §706(1) and the Mandamus Act, claiming “unreasonable delay.” |
| Mar 6 2025 | Court grants USCIS’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss. |
3. Core arguments
- Ayala: §555(b) obliges USCIS to act “within a reasonable time”; a 35-month stall exceeds reason, especially when other service centers decide I-130s faster.
- USCIS: No statute or regulation sets a deadline; NBC handles adoption-based petitions, so routing was proper; §555(b) alone provides no judicially manageable standard.
4. Key holdings
| Issue | Court’s ruling | Practical effect |
| Non-discretionary duty? | Yes—USCIS must eventually adjudicate every I-130. | Plaintiffs clear the first APA/Mandamus hurdle. |
| “Reasonable-time” standard? | No statutory or regulatory clock exists; posted 48.5-month queue provides context. | Plaintiffs failed to allege a delay outside normal agency timelines. |
| Subject-matter jurisdiction? | Absent a plausible “unreasonable delay,” the court lacks §1331 jurisdiction over the APA claim and cannot issue mandamus. | Entire case dismissed without prejudice; plaintiff may re-file if delay grows. |
| TRAC factors? | Not reached—jurisdiction falls on the threshold showing. | Plaintiffs in the Fifth Circuit must plead specific TRAC facts up front. |
5. Practitioner take-aways
| Tip | Explanation |
| Compare against USCIS’s own “80 %” figure | If your client’s wait is still within published processing times, expect dismissal. |
| Highlight why the file is extraordinary | Medical hardship, statutory-age cut-offs, or agency error (e.g., mis-routing) can distinguish a case. |
| Venue matters | Fifth-Circuit district courts (Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi) follow Li v. Jaddou closely; Ninth-Circuit courts have allowed 19- to 20-month K-1 delays to proceed (Mahmood v. Bitter, 2025; Hassan v. Dillard, 2024). |
| Mandamus is not a shortcut | Without an APA win, mandamus fails for the same “no clear right” reason. |
| Monitor the NBC queue | When the wait creeps beyond 49 months—or the agency drops its posted time—re-filing may become viable. |
6. Comparative lens
| Decision | Delay length | Outcome | Circuit climate |
| Ayala (N.D. Tex.) | 35 months (I-130) | Dismissed | Fifth Circuit—strict: §555(b) not enough. |
| Mahmood v. Bitter (W.D. Wash.) | 19 months (K-1) | Delay claim survives 12(b)(6) | Ninth Circuit—asks for “rule of reason” evidence. |
| Hassan v. Dillard (D. Minn.) | 20 months (K-1) | Delay claim survives | Eighth Circuit—skeptical of 221(g) finality. |
7. Bottom line
Ayala v. Jaddou confirms that, in the Fifth Circuit, plaintiffs must allege a delay well beyond USCIS’s published timeframes—or present compelling, case-specific harm—before a district court will even reach the six-factor TRAC analysis. Until then, APA and mandamus suits over I-130 backlogs will likely end where this one did: at the jurisdictional gate.