A federal lawsuit filed in Boston is challenging an alleged adjudication pause by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, with plaintiffs arguing that the policy has unlawfully stalled immigration applications and caused widespread harm.
The complaint, brought by immigration attorney LaToya McBean Pompy and her firm through its LIFT (Litigating Immigration for Freedom Today) initiative, includes 99 plaintiffs from 39 countries. The suit seeks injunctive relief compelling the agency to resume processing the affected applications.
According to the filing, the alleged pause has disrupted a range of immigration benefits, including family-based petitions and employment-related applications. Plaintiffs include U.S. citizens petitioning for spouses, as well as foreign nationals working in critical sectors such as healthcare and research.
McBean Pompy said the complaint is supported by extensive evidentiary submissions, including declarations detailing the consequences of prolonged delays.
The legal claims are expected to center on administrative and constitutional grounds, including whether the agency’s actions violate the Administrative Procedure Act by unlawfully withholding or unreasonably delaying agency action. The suit may also raise due process concerns tied to the indefinite suspension of adjudications without clear statutory authority.
The plaintiffs are seeking court intervention to restore timely processing, arguing that the agency has a nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate applications within a reasonable timeframe.
The case has been filed against the backdrop of ongoing scrutiny of processing delays within U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. While the agency has not publicly commented on this specific litigation, prior policy shifts and operational backlogs have prompted similar legal challenges in recent years.
McBean Pompy indicated that additional motions are forthcoming and that the firm has initiated contact with the U.S. Attorney’s Office. The litigation will proceed through standard federal court processes, with early motions likely to address jurisdiction, standing, and the scope of injunctive relief.
If successful, the case could set a precedent on the limits of agency discretion in pausing adjudications and reinforce judicial oversight over immigration processing delays.
