I. The New USCIS Vetting Process and Resulting Adjudication Holds
On April 27, 2026, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) began implementing an enhanced security vetting process requiring the resubmission of fingerprints for updated FBI background checks in a wide range of pending immigration cases. Reports from immigration practitioners nationwide indicate that, as a result, USCIS has placed numerous cases on hold pending completion of these new checks.
The adjudication holds appear to affect, most prominently, applications for adjustment of status and asylum, though other benefit categories requiring biometrics may also be impacted. In many cases, the hold applies even where applicants previously completed fingerprinting and security checks under earlier systems. As of this writing, USCIS has not issued comprehensive public guidance defining the precise scope of the hold or establishing a concrete timeline for adjudication.
II. USCIS Authority to Vet and Its Duty to Adjudicate
USCIS possesses statutory authority to conduct security and background checks prior to granting immigration benefits. That authority reflects Congress’s recognition of the government’s interest in protecting national security and public safety.
However, federal law draws a clear distinction between discretion over outcomes and discretion to postpone action indefinitely. Under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), federal agencies are required to “conclude a matter presented to [them] within a reasonable time.” 5 U.S.C. § 555(b).
The Supreme Court has emphasized that while agencies may exercise judgment in how they perform their duties, courts retain authority to compel action where an agency has unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed a required act. Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55, 64 (2004).
Accordingly, USCIS’s authority to vet applicants does not extinguish its obligation to adjudicate applications that have been properly filed and documented.
III. The Role of Post-Adjudication Enforcement in the Immigration Scheme
A critical feature of the statutory immigration framework is that Congress has granted the government extensive authority to address problems discovered after an immigration benefit is granted. These authorities include rescission of lawful permanent residence, revocation of approved petitions, reopening or reconsideration of benefits, and initiation of removal proceedings based on fraud, misrepresentation, or disqualifying conduct.
The presence of these post-adjudication enforcement mechanisms is legally significant. It demonstrates that Congress did not condition approval of immigration benefits on eliminating all conceivable future risk at the pre-adjudication stage. Rather, Congress structured the system to balance pre-grant vetting with post-grant corrective authority.
This framework undercuts the notion that USCIS may lawfully impose indefinite pre-decision holds in pursuit of absolute certainty before adjudicating.
IV. Reasonableness as the Governing Legal Standard for Delay
When courts evaluate claims of unreasonable agency delay, they apply the multifactor analysis articulated in Telecommunications Research & Action Center v. FCC (“TRAC”), 750 F.2d 70 (D.C. Cir. 1984). Although TRAC did not arise in the immigration context, its six factors have become the governing standard for delay claims involving USCIS.
Under TRAC, courts consider, among other factors:
Whether the agency’s delay follows a “rule of reason”;
Whether Congress has provided a timetable for agency action;
The impact of delay on human health and welfare;
The effect of expediting the case on competing agency priorities; and
The nature and extent of the interests prejudiced by delay.
Courts applying TRAC have repeatedly held that reliance on background checks or security vetting does not, standing alone, justify open-ended or indefinite delay. See, e.g., Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Council, Inc. v. Norton, 336 F.3d 1094, 1102–03 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (agency may not “adopt a categorical refusal to act” under the guise of competing priorities).
Importantly, a finding of unreasonable delay does not require evidence of bad faith or improper motive. TRAC, 750 F.2d at 79.
V. Mandamus as a Judicial Remedy for Prolonged USCIS Delay
Where USCIS delay becomes unreasonable, petitioners and beneficiaries may seek judicial relief through a writ of mandamus, often combined with an APA claim. The Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361, authorizes federal courts to compel a federal officer or agency to perform a nondiscretionary duty owed to the plaintiff.
To obtain mandamus relief, a plaintiff must establish:
A clear right to relief;
A clear duty on the part of the agency to act; and
The absence of any other adequate remedy.
See Lovitky v. Trump, 949 F.3d 753, 759 (D.C. Cir. 2020).
In the immigration context, courts have repeatedly recognized that while USCIS retains discretion over the substance of a decision, it does not have discretion to decline to decide indefinitely. Am. Hosp. Ass’n v. Burwell, 812 F.3d 183, 189 (D.C. Cir. 2016).
Mandamus actions do not compel approval of an application. They compel action—requiring USCIS to adjudicate and either approve or deny the benefit.
VI. Application of Mandamus to the Current Vetting Holds
In the context of the recent adjudication holds tied to enhanced FBI vetting, mandamus becomes most relevant where delays evolve from temporary system-implementation issues into prolonged inaction without individualized review or defined endpoints.
Courts are particularly receptive to mandamus claims where:
The delay substantially exceeds USCIS’s own historical or published processing times;
USCIS offers only generalized explanations divorced from the specific case;
The applicant faces concrete harm such as loss of employment authorization, inability to travel, or legal vulnerability; and
No alternative administrative remedies have proven effective.
The availability of post-adjudication enforcement authority further weakens agency claims that indefinite pre-decision delay is necessary to protect government interests.
VII. Limits of Mandamus Relief
Mandamus is a procedural remedy, not a substantive one. It may compel USCIS to act but cannot:
Guarantee approval of an application;
Alter statutory eligibility requirements; or
Prevent USCIS from denying a benefit based on lawful grounds.
As courts have emphasized, mandamus enforces accountability in process, not favorable outcomes.
VIII. Conclusion
The current USCIS adjudication holds underscore a recurring principle of administrative law: while agencies may investigate, they must also decide.
USCIS’s authority to conduct enhanced vetting does not nullify its obligation to adjudicate applications within a reasonable time. Congress has already accounted for the possibility that concerns may arise after approval, and courts have consistently rejected agency attempts to justify indefinite inaction through generalized appeals to caution or workload.
For petitioners and beneficiaries whose cases remain stalled without progress, judicial remedies such as mandamus provide a lawful mechanism to restore agency accountability and ensure that applications move forward in accordance with federal law.