A District Court can properly exercise jurisdiction over I-130 petitions in extreme and rare circumstances. Allegedly, the petitioner, James Miller, filed an I-130 petition for an alien relative with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on behalf of his spouse, Merline Wright, so that she could become a lawful permanent resident. In 2011, the Department of Homeland Security approved the petition. In 2012, Wright was interviewed at the U.S. embassy in Jamaica in connection with a visa application. The U.S. embassy informed Miller that information that Wright provided during that interview was insufficient to prove that the relationship was not entered into for immigration purposes only. Miller requested a writ of mandamus, to order the respondents to issue a visa within 30 days. In 2013, Miller provided additional documents, and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services decided not to rescind the I-130 approval. The respondents moved to dismiss and argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over Miller's petition for a writ of mandamus. The writ of mandamus, as codified in 28 United States Code §1361, is intended to provide a remedy if a petitioner has exhausted all other avenues of relief and the respondent owes a clear, nondiscretionary duty. Although a District Court can properly exercise jurisdiction over I-130 petitions in extreme and rare circumstances, pursuant to Ruiz v. Mukasey, a 2009 decision of the 2nd Circuit, the petitioner, Miller, failed to establish an undue delay of a final decision or that the respondents owe a nondiscretionary duty. The District Court concluded it would be premature and inappropriate to grant the petition for a writ of mandamus. All ordinary visa granting processes should take place, wrote the court, without the extraordinary remedy of judicial interference. The court denied the petitioner's request to order U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to issue a visa to his wife.

VIEW FULL CASE