Case 1:15-cv-06443-RJD Document 1 Filed 11/10/15 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
EKATERINA GROMOVA )
LORETTA LYNCH, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL; )
JEH JOHNSON, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF )
HOMELAND SECURlTY; )
LEON RODRlGUEZ, DIRECTOR, USCIS; )
JEAN THARPE, DIRECTOR, VERMONT SERVICE )
CENTER, USCIS; )
PHYLLIS COVEN, DISTRICT )
DIRECTOR, NEW YORK DISTRICT OFFICE, USCIS; )
JAMES B. COMEY, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL )
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, )
Immigration File No.:
A 205 882 404
COMPLAINT FOR MANDAMUS
Comes now the Plaintiffs, Ekaterina Gromova ("Plaintiff') and by and through
the undersigned attorney, pleads as follows:
This is a civil action brought in the nature of mandamus and for declaratory and
injunctive relief to compel final agency action that has been unlawfully withheld and
unreasonably delayed for more than two and a half years with respect to the adjudication
of I-360 self-petition Under Violence Against Women Act and the 1-485 application for
Lawful Permanent Resident status.
Case 1:15-cv-06443-RJD Document 1 Filed 11/10/15 Page 2 of 13 PageID #: 2
1. The action arises under the Immigration and Nationality Act and brought pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1361 ("The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action
in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or
any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff."). Jurisdiction is further
conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1329 Uurisdiction of the district courts) and 28 U.S.C. §
1331 (federal subject matter jurisdiction).
2. Jurisdiction is also conferred pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §§ 555(b) and 702, the
Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"). The APA requires USCIS to carry out its
duties within a reasonable time. 5 U.S.C. § 555(b) provides that "[w]ith due regard
for the convenience and necessity of the parties or their representatives and within a
reasonable time, each agency shall proceed to conclude a matter presented to it."
See also Kim v. Ashcroft, 340 F.Supp.2d 384, 393 (SDNY 2004) ("failure to take any
action runs afoul of section 555(b)"). (Emphasis added).
3. Section 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"), 8 U.S.C. § 1252, does
not deprive this Court of jurisdiction. INA § 242(a)(5) provides that "a petition for
review filed with an appropriate court of appeals in accordance with this section,
shall be the sole and exclusive means for judicial review of an order of removal
entered or issued under any provision of this Act[.]" As the present action does not
seek review of a removal order, but is simply an action to compel users to
adjudicate the Plaintiffs unreasonably delayed application, this Court retains
original mandamus jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1361.
4. Furthennore, INA § 242(a)(2)(B) provides that no court shall have jurisdiction to
review either (i) "any judgment regarding the granting of' various forms of relief
Case 1:15-cv-06443-RJD Document 1 Filed 11/10/15 Page 3 of 13 PageID #: 3
from removal, or (ii) "any other decision or action of the Attorney General or the
Secretary of Homeland Security the authority for which is specified ... to be in the
discretion of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security[.]"
Because adjudication of a properly filed immigration petition and adjustment of
status application is neither a judgment regarding the granting of relief from removal
nor a decision or action that is specified to be in the discretion of the Attorney
General or the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Court retains original mandamus
jurisdiction over this claim. See Arar v. Ashcroft, 414 F.Supp.2d 250, 267-73
(E.D.N. Y. 2006) (citing, inter alia, Sepulveda v. Gonzales, 407 F. 3d 59 (2d Cir.
5. Indeed, numerous courts have found that immigration authorities have a non-
discretionary duty to adjudicate applications. See American Academy of Religion v.
Chertofl 06 CV 588,2006 WL 1751254, *16 (S.D.N.Y. June 23, 2006) (holding that
the regulation stating that consular officials either "issue or refuse" a completed visa
creates a duty to adjudicate); Dabone v. Thornburgh, 734 F.Supp. 195, 200 (E.D.PA.
1990) (holding the Board of Immigration Appeals owed plaintiff a duty to adjudicate
his motion to reopen an exclusion proceeding); Yu v. Brown,36 F.Supp.2d 922, 931-
32 (D.N.M 1999) (holding that the INS owed plaintiff a duty to process her
application for a change of status to permanent resident); Nigmadzhanov v. Mueller,
550 F. Supp. 2d 540 (S.D.N. Y. 2008)("[t]his duty can be implied from Congress'
explicit delegation of the power. .. to process form 1-485 applications, in conjunction
with the general § 555(b) requirement that an agency complete its delegated tasks
with a reasonable time)....The absence of a duty to adjudicate at all defies logic.")
Case 1:15-cv-06443-RJD Document 1 Filed 11/10/15 Page 4 of 13 PageID #: 4
6. Furthermore, the FBI has a mandatory duty, by implication, to complete the
background check in connection with adjustment of status application. See Kaplan v.
Cherto(f: 481 F Supp. 2d 370, 400-01 (E.D. Pa. April 16, 2007), Obeid v. ChertofL
2008 U.S Dist. LEXIS 23748 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 26, 2008)
7. Both the regulations and the INA provide numerous examples of duties owed by
USCIS in the adjustment of status process. 8 U.S.C. § 1103 provides that "[t]he
Secretary of Homeland Security shall be charged with the administration and
enforcement of this Act and all other laws relating to the immigration and
naturalization of aliens[.]" (Emphasis added). 8 U.S. Code § 1154 (a)(l )(J) states
with regard to self-petitions that "[i]n acting on petitions...the Attorney General
shall consider any credible evidence relevant to the petition."
8. The Code of Federal Regulations provides that "[u]pon receipt of a self-petition ...
the Service shall make a determination as to whether the petition and the supporting
documentation establish a "prima facie case"" 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(c)(6)(i) (emphasis
added). The Code further provides that "[i]f the Service determines that a petitioner
has made a "prima facie case," the Service shall issue a Notice of Prima Facie Case
to the petitioner. Such Notice shall be valid until the Service either grants or denies
the petition." 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(c)(6)(iii) (emphasis added). The INA provides that
"[i]n acting on petitions ... the Attorney General shall consider any credible
evidence relevant to the petition." INA § 204(a)(l)(J). Section 204(b) of the INA
provides that "[a]fter an investigation of the facts in each case the Attorney General
shall, if he determines that the facts stated in the petition are true and that the alien in
behalf of whom the petition is made is an immediate relative specified in section
Case 1:15-cv-06443-RJD Document 1 Filed 11/10/15 Page 5 of 13 PageID #: 5
20l(b) of this Act. ..approve the petition". Moreover when an "officer denies an
application or petition... the officer shall explain in writing the specific reasons for
denial". 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i).
9. Thus statute uses the term "shall" expressly requiring the agency to adjudicate a self-
petition, where the conditions, prescribed by the law have been satisfied. Congress
clearly contemplates that an investigation will be conducted and a decision rendered.
I0. Moreover, the Congressional intent is implicitly acknowledged in the language of
pertinent regulations by the use of a term "will". Specifically 8 CFR § 204.2 (c)(2)
states that "[t]he Service will consider. ..any credible evidence relevant to the
petition." 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(c)(3)(i) states that "[i]f the self-petitioning spouse will
apply for adjustment of status...the approved petition will be retained by the
Service" and "[i]f the self-petitioner will apply for an immigrant visa abroad, the
approved self-petition will be forwarded to the Department of State's National Visa
Center." The regulations further provide that "[i]f the self-petition is denied, the self-
petitioner will be notified in writing of the reasons for the denial and of the right to
appeal the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(c)(3)(ii)." (emphasis added).
11. Thus, the INA and the regulations issued pursuant to it impose on the executive
branch a clear duty to either grant or deny self-petition. The agency is not authorized
to hold onto the petition and make no decision.
12. The regulations further provide that "[e)ach applicant for adjustment of status ...
shall be interviewed by an immigration officer." 8 C.F.R. § 245.6 (emphasis added).
The regulations further provide that "the applicant shall be notified of the decision of
Case 1:15-cv-06443-RJD Document 1 Filed 11/10/15 Page 6 of 13 PageID #: 6
the director and, if the application is denied, the reasons for the denial." 8 C.F.R. §
245.2(a)(5)(i) (emphasis added).
13. The language of the statute and the above-cited regulations is mandatory, not
discretionary, and the Defendants owe a "clear nondiscretionary duty" to the
Plaintiffs to adjudicate I-485 application. Hoo Lao v. Ridge. No. 04 CV 5553. 2007
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17822. 2007 WL 813000. at *3 (E.D.N. Y Mar. 14. 2007).·
14. As set forth below, the delay in processing of the Plaintiffs properly filed self-
petition and application for adjustment of status is unreasonable.
15. Venue is proper in this Court because the Plaintiff resides within the jurisdiction of
this Court. 28 U.S.C. § 139l(e).
16. Plaintiff Ekaterina Gromova is a citizen of Russia, resides in the United States in
Brooklyn, NY, within the Eastern District ofNew York.
17. Defendant Loretta Lynch is Attorney General of the United States and this action is
brought against her in her official capacity. She is charged with enforcement of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, and is further authorized to delegate such powers
and authority to subordinate employees of the Department of Justice 8 U.S.C.
§11 03(a). Department of Homeland Security, formerly the Immigration and
Naturalization Services, is an agency within the Department of Justice to whom the
Case 1:15-cv-06443-RJD Document 1 Filed 11/10/15 Page 7 of 13 PageID #: 7
Attorney General's authority has m part been delegated and IS subject to the
Attorney General's supervision.
18. Defendant Jeh Johnson is the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and
this action is brought against him in his official capacity. In his capacity he has
responsibility for the administration of the immigration laws pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
19. Defendant Leon Rodriguez is the Director of the United States Citizenship and
Immigration Services ("USCIS") within DHS and this action is brought against him
in his official capacity. In this capacity he has responsibility for the administration of
the immigration laws pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1103.
20. Defendant Jean Tharpe is the Director of Vermont Service Center within DHS and
this action is brought against him in his official capacity. In this capacity he is
responsible for the administration of immigration benefits and services including the
processing of family-based immigration petitions.
21. Defendant Phyllis Coven is the District Director ofthe New York District Office of
the USCIS and this action is brought against her in her official capacity. In that
capacity, she has responsibility for the adjudication of immigration applications filed
with the New York District Office or transferred to the New York District Office.
22. Defendant James B. Corney is the Director of Federal Bureau of Investigation and
this action is brought against him in his official capacity. In this capacity he has
responsibility for providing information regarding security clearances to CIS in
connection with applications under the immigration laws.
Case 1:15-cv-06443-RJD Document 1 Filed 11/10/15 Page 8 of 13 PageID #: 8
IV. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
23. No exhaustion requirements apply to the Plaintiffs complaint for a Writ of
Mandamus. The Plaintiff is owed a duty - the adjudication of the properly filed self-
petition and application to adjust status, which have been duly filed with USCIS.
Defendants have unreasonably delayed and failed to adjudicate the Plaintiffs self-
petition and the application for adjustment of status for more than two and a half
years. The Plaintiff has no administrative remedies, as there are no administrative
remedies provided for neglect and failure to comply with agency regulations.
V. APPLICABLE PERMENANT RESIDENCE PROCEDURES
24. In general, the Act allocates immigrant visas based upon preferences grounded in
family or employment relationships, as described in Section 201 and 203 of the Act,
8 U.S.C. §§ 1151 , 1153. An alien spouse of abusive citizen of the United States may
file self-petition for classification as an immediate relative under section 201 (b) of
the Act. For all practical purposes this preference is not subject to quota limitations.
To obtain lawful permanent residence through abusive United State citizen, an I-360
preference self-petition is filed with USCIS under Section 204 and 245 of the Act.
Pursuant to the Section 204.2 of the Act a self-petitioning alien must submit
evidence of residence in the United States, evidence of good-faith marriage to an
abusive U. S. citizen, evidence that the alien has been battered by, or has been the
subject of extreme cruelty perpetrated by the U.S. citizen during the marriage and
evidence of good moral character. Upon receipt of a self-petition the Service makes
a determination as to whether the petition and the supporting documentation
Case 1:15-cv-06443-RJD Document 1 Filed 11/10/15 Page 9 of 13 PageID #: 9
establish a "prima facie case". If the Service determines that a self-petitioner has
made a "prima facie case," the Service issues a Notice of Prima Facie Case to the
petitioner. Such Notice is valid until the Service either grants or denies the self-
petition. I-485 application for adjustment of status to that of a permanent resident
may be filed concurrently with the I-360 self-petition or at a later time based on the
pending I-360 self-petition. If the self-petition is approved petition will be retained
by the Service. If the self-petitioner will apply for an immigrant visa abroad, the
approved self-petition will be forwarded to the Department of State's National Visa
Center. After approval of 1-360 self-petition, an applicant for adjustment of status is
interview to determine eligibility for adjustment of status.
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION
25. Plaintiff is entitled to adjust her status to that of a lawful permanent resident under
Section 245 of the INA based on her I-360 self-petition. The Plaintiff was born in
Russia, and came to the United States on May 20, 2010, on a J-1 student-exchange
visa. The Plaintiff is not inadmissible on any ground.
26. Plaintiff entered a marriage with a U.S. citizen William Walker Watson on April 29,
2011. The Plaintiff suffered physical and emotional abuse at the hands of her U.S.
citizen spouse. On March 27, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an 1-360 self-petition. (Please
see Exhibit A). On July 12, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an 1-485 application for
adjustment of status to that of a permanent resident based on the pending I-360 self-
petition. (Please see Exhibit B). The Plaintiff duly appeared for biometric
appointment in connection with the I-485 application.
Case 1:15-cv-06443-RJD Document 1 Filed 11/10/15 Page 10 of 13 PageID #: 10
27. According to the USCIS's published case adjudication Processing Time Information
for the Vermont Service Center (VSC), which has jurisdiction over all I-360 self-
petitions based on domestic abuse, the agency's current processing time for 1-360
self-petitions is 5 months. The current procession times for 1-485 by the New York
City Field office, which has jurisdiction over family-based 1-485 applications is 10
months. The Plaintiffs 1-360 self-petition and the I-485 have been pending for more
than two and a half years. The adjudication of the Plaintiffs 1-360 self-petition and
1-485 application clearly extends far beyond the USCIS's normal processing
timeframe. (Please see Exhibit C)
28. Plaintiff has made number of inquiries with the USeiS regarding her case. However
no final action was taken on the case.
29. Specifically, on October 28, 2014, the Plaintiff through the undersigned submitted a
written request for decision to VSC. VSC neither acknowledged the request nor
acted on the case. (Please see Exhibit D).
30. On January 14, 2015, the Plaintiff through the undersigned submitted a written
request for decision to VSC by certified mail. VSC neither acknowledged the request
nor acted on the case. (Please see Exhibit E).
31. On July 15, 2015, the Plaintiff made an in-person inquiry with the USeiS and was
advised to make a written inquiry to VSC through her attorney. However we
submitted two prior written inquiries and received no information. (Please see
Case 1:15-cv-06443-RJD Document 1 Filed 11/10/15 Page 11 of 13 PageID #: 11
32. On September 3, 2015, the Plaintiff through the undersigned submitted an inquiry
via email to VSC. No action was taken regarding the inquiry by the VCS. (Please see
33. The lengthy delay by the Defendants in adjudication takes great toll on the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff suffered domestic violence at the hands of her U.S. citizen spouse. She
escaped the abuse and began healing process. However the uncertainty of her current
status and the lengthy delay not only prevents her from recovery but also exacerbates
her condition. The Plaintiff didn't see her mother for many years. Plaintiffs
grandfather and uncle passed away in 2014 and she could not travel for the funeral.
The Plaintiff suffers from the separation with her family and inability to be around
during hard times. The Plaintiff is prevented from obtaining a better employment
because of lack of permanent resident status in the United States since prospective
employers are looking for people for a long term commitment. The uncertainty of
her situation also prevents her from obtaining a mortgage and improving her living
conditions. The Plaintiff wants to go to school and study marketing. However she
cannot afford it because she would have to pay twice more in tuition as a non-
34. The Defendants have sufficient information to determine the Plaintiffs eligibility for
requested immigration benefits. Moreover the USCIS never requested any additional
evidence to show eligibility. Notwithstanding, the Defendant USCIS has
unreasonably delayed and refused to adjudicate the Plaintiffs I-360 self-petition and
1-485 application to adjust status. The Defendants' inaction in the Plaintiffs case has
caused inordinate and unfair amounts of stress, expense, and hassle for the Plaintiff,
Case 1:15-cv-06443-RJD Document 1 Filed 11/10/15 Page 12 of 13 PageID #: 12
who is entitled to a decision on her self-petition and application to adjust status
without further unreasonable delay.
35. The Defendants have unreasonably failed to issue a decision on Plaintiff's
immigration case. Since more than two and a half years elapsed since the Plaintiff
filed her 1-360 self-petition and the 1-485 application, she respectfully requests that
this Court instruct USCIS to adjudicate the case without further delay.
36. The Plaintiff has fully complied with all of the statutory and regulatory requirements
for seeking adjustment of status based on 1-360 self-petition, including submission of
all necessary forms and supporting documents.
37. The Defendants have unreasonably failed to adjudicate the Plaintiffs l-360 self-
petition and 1-485 application for adjustment of status for more than two and a half
years, thereby depriving the Plaintiff of her right to a decision under the INA.
38. The continued failure of the Defendants to adjudicate the Plaintiffs 1-360 self-
petition and I-485 application for adjustment of status violates the Act and the APA,
5 U.S.C. § 555(b), which requires federal agencies to conclude matters with
reasonable promptness. Under the APA, U.S.C. § 706(1), this Court has the power to
compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably. The continuing failure
of the Defendants to take action required by law is subject to correction by
mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1361.
Case 1:15-cv-06443-RJD Document 1 Filed 11/10/15 Page 13 of 13 PageID #: 13
39. Defendants owe Plaintiff the duty to act upon her 1-360 self-petition and 1-485
application for adjustment of status pursuant to the INA and have unreasonably
failed to perform that duty.
40. The Plaintiff has no alternative means to obtain adjudication of her 1-360 self-
petition and 1-485 adjustment application and she has the right to issuance of the writ
41. Defendants' delay is without justification and has forced the Plaintiff to resort to this
Court for relief, and the Plaintiff is entitled to attorney's fees pursuant to the Equal
Access to Justice Act ("EAJA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2).
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that the Court:
(1) Compel the Defendants and those acting under him to perform their
duty to adjudicate the Plaintiffs 1-360 self-petition and I-485 application without further
(2) Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems proper under
the circumstance; and
(3) Award the Plaintiff their attorney's fees and costs of court pursuant to
the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) or other applicable law.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
November 9, 2015