This case is about the government's failure to adjudicate refugees' follow-to-join (FTJ) petitions that would allow their families to reunite in the U.S. in a timely manner.

The plaintiffs are both Sudanese refugees from the Darfur region who fled the country in the early 2010s to escape the ethnic cleansing being carried out by President Omar al-Bashir. Since their arrival in the United States, both filed a "follow-to-join" petition through U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), which would have allowed them to reunite in the U.S. with their spouses and children who were still in Sudan. The follow-to-join statute is part of the Refugee Act of 1980 and creates a non-discretionary entitlement to admission for spouses and unmarried children of refugees in the U.S. Several years passed since the plaintiffs filed their petitions and the government failed to adjudicate their FTJ applications, prolonging the separations of the plaintiffs from their family.

On October 22, 2020, the two refugee fathers with family in Sudan men filed this lawsuit against the Secretary of State, the Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The plaintiffs sought a writ of mandamus to compel the defendants to promptly adjudicate their FTJ petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Additionally, the complaint alleged that the defendants violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and their Fifth Amendment due process rights. Because the defendants' duty to adjudicate the FTJ petitions is non-discretionary under the Immigration and Nationality Act and the APA obligates defendants to take non-discretionary actions within a “reasonable time,” the plaintiffs alleged that they are entitled to timely adjudication of their petitions. The complaint further alleged that the Mandamus Act vests the court with authority to compel a government agent to perform a non-discretionary duty owed to the plaintiffs.

The case was assigned to Judge Stephanie Gallagher. On February 5, 2021, the defendants requested extended time to file their response, which was granted that day.

The case is ongoing as of March 3, 2021.

Rachel Kreager - 03/03/2021


compress summary