Lubega v. Mayorkas: Two-Year I-130 Queue Deemed Reasonable Under TRAC
U.S. District Court, N.D. Illinois (Eastern Division) — Sept. 11 2024
1. Why this case matters
Judge Sunil R. Harjani’s opinion joins a line of Seventh-Circuit district decisions (Aljabari, Orozco, Heidarnejad) treating delays of roughly two to three years in spousal I-130 processing as per se reasonable absent extraordinary facts. The ruling underscores that, when USCIS’s posted average at the California Service Center hovers around 42 months, a 26-month wait will not survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion under either the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) or the Mandamus Act.
2. Factual snapshot
| Timeline | Milestone |
| July 14 2022 | Lawful-permanent-resident (LPR) William Lubega files I-130 for Ugandan spouse. |
| Sept 2024 | No USCIS action after 26 months; plaintiff sues for APA §706(1) and mandamus relief. |
| USCIS queue | California Service Center’s public estimate for 80 % completion: ≈ 42 months (as of motion date). |
3. Key holdings
| Issue | Court’s conclusion |
| Mandamus (28 U.S.C. §1361) | Duplicative of APA; fails because an adequate statutory remedy exists. |
| APA unreasonable-delay (§706(1)) | Complaint dismissed; applying the six TRAC factors, a 26-month wait inside a 42-month published timeframe is not “so egregious” as to warrant judicial compulsion. |
| TRAC analysis highlights | • Factor 1 (rule of reason): USCIS’s first-in-first-out (FIFO) policy is acceptable. • Factor 2: No congressional deadline; courts rarely disturb delays < 3 years. • Factor 3 & 5: No health/safety risk; ordinary familial separation carries limited weight. • Factor 4: Granting relief would allow plaintiff to “skip the line,” harming thousands similarly queued. • Factor 6: No allegation of bad faith. |
Result: Entire complaint dismissed for failure to state a plausible claim.
4. Practical take-aways for immigration advocates
| Scenario | Strategic guidance |
| < 3-year I-130 delay (CSC or NBC) | Seventh-Circuit courts will likely dismiss; wait until delay clearly exceeds posted processing-time range or develop facts showing deviation from FIFO. |
| Need to plead exceptional harm | Provide concrete medical, humanitarian, or age-out risks; boilerplate hardship won’t shift TRAC factors. |
| Mandamus pleading | File only as alternative to APA; acknowledge overlap to avoid redundancy critique. |
| Comparative venues | Ninth-Circuit districts (e.g., Mahmood v. Bitter) allow discovery and let 19-month K-1 delays proceed; Seventh/Fifth Circuits are far stricter. |
| Data evidence | Collect USCIS dashboard snapshots and FOIA queue data to demonstrate petitioner is out of order or substantially beyond averages. |
5. Bottom line
Lubega v. Mayorkas cements a Seventh-Circuit reality: without showing a delay well past three years—or compelling, individualized hardship—district courts will deem USCIS’s FIFO backlog “reasonable” and dismiss APA and mandamus claims at the pleadings stage. Plaintiffs should calibrate filing strategy accordingly.