Filed Date: Jan. 27, 2026
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This lawsuit was brought by a Venezuelan national lawfully residing and working in the United States to challenge the delay in her application for a visa renewal.
On June 4, 2025, President Trump issued Proclamation 10949 entitled “Restricting the Entry of Foreign Nationals to Protect the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats.” The Proclamation was intended to prevent the entry or admission of foreign nationals about whom the United States Government lacks sufficient information to assess the risks they pose to the United States; it names Venezuela as a country subject to a partial restriction and limit on entry. On November 27, 2025, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued new policy guidance indicating that the agency will consider, “relevant country-specific facts and circumstances such as those outlined in PP 10949 as part of its adjudication of discretionary benefit requests.”
Valentina Amaro Bowser has studied, lived, and legally worked in this country since 2013. She first arrived on a F-1 visa to attend college, and had subsequently been granted two H-1B visas, which she never violated the terms of. Her third H-1B visa application was filed by her employer on December 10, 2025, and while her petition was pending, she was authorized to work only through February 14, 2026. After marrying her U.S. citizen husband Brandon Bowser, Valentina also applied for her residence on Form I-485 and Brandon filed a visa petition on Form I-130 for her on January 8, 2026.
In accordance with the Trump Administration’s policies, Valentina’s applications were delayed over 12 months, and when she was finally interviewed by USCIS she “learn[ed] that the USCIS could not adjudicate the applications because of an unlawful hold on applications from citizens of 39 countries, one of which is Venezuela.”
On January 27, 2026, Plaintiffs Valentina Amaro Bowser and Brandon Bowser filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), USCIS, and their directors. They alleged that, despite the visa applications meeting all requirements for approval, the Defendants have “improperly withheld action on said applications to the detriment of each Plaintiff” in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The Plaintiffs sought a writ of mandamus under the Mandamus act to compel the USCIS to undertake its “mandatory duty to adjudicate the Plaintiffs’ Forms I-130, I-485, and I-765 within a ‘reasonable time’ under the INA and APA.” They also sought declaratory and injunctive relief to set aside the challenged Trump Administration policies, and attorneys’ fees. The case was assigned to Judge Angel Kelley.
The Plaintiffs also filed a motion for emergency preliminary relief on February 6, 2026, to compel the Defendants to approve her visa applications. If she were not to be approved for “residence or for her employment authorization by February 14, 2026, she cannot legally work and will lose her job with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts after February 28, 2026 if she is not legally authorized to work by that date.”
The Defendants filed a memorandum opposing the motion on February 16, arguing that the court lacks jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ APA claim because the USCIS’s interim guidance is not final agency action reviewable under the APA. Further, they argued that the “Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) bars jurisdiction over claims challenging the government’s discretionary actions with respect to employment authorization applications—including challenges to policies to hold such applications in abeyance.” And in the alternative, they argued that the USCIS’s adoption of the policy was “reasonable and reasonably explained.”
The Plaintiffs filed a reply on February 20. This case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Madena Mustafa (2/25/2026)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72192698/parties/bowser-v-noem/
Kelley, Angel (Massachusetts)
Drago, Anthony Drago (Massachusetts)
Fitzgerald, Michael (Massachusetts)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72192698/bowser-v-noem/
Last updated March 30, 2026, 3:11 a.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: Jan. 27, 2026
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
A Venezuelan national lawfully residing and working in the U.S., along with her U.S.-citizen spouse
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Federal
Department of Homeland Security
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Other Dockets:
District of Massachusetts 1:26-cv-10382
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Immigration/Border:
Work authorization - procedures
Case Summary of Bowser v. Noem, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/47773/ (last updated 2/25/2026).